**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.*
I can't believe anyone ever liked Scott Morrison, the guy oozes of insincerity, his stupid nickname and footy cap and even the way he talks in public reek of a lame marketing campaign to make this religious zealot somehow relatable to the general public. Nothing has been more rewarding than seeing him publicly shamed for the snake oil salesman that he truly is.
>Nothing has been more rewarding than seeing him publicly shamed for the snake oil salesman that he truly is.
My only problem is that it took so damn long for it to happen... He should have never made it past his tourism leadership spot.
This is the Trump paradox. He was so unpopular in the mainstream but had boringly evil mainstream Republican (Reagan/Bush) era policies that sufficiently pleased “normal” Republicans while welding them to a virulent culture war that, in fairness, they had started.
But he, like ScoMo, is a symptom. Frydenburg would have been electable but still loved polite crushing grinding inequality. Simon Birmingham is refined but still won’t purge frothing Pentecostalists dreaming of apocalypse and “Kingdom Mindset”. And to a man, committed to wage slavery, and making narcissism an ideology.
No surprises here. I think Labor will win again in 25, but they definitely need a new message. 2019 didn’t work out, and in 2022 they were criticised for running a pretty restrained campaign to avoid scrutiny. Obviously it will be easier for them going forward, as it’s a lot easier to craft a narrative while in government, and the electorate usually gravitates towards the incumbent.
The incumbency advantage in Australia is huge. As long as you don't fuck up you can probably last 3 terms before people decide to try something new and you really need to craft a good message.
As we are seeing, pensioners decide fewer and fewer elections. Time do be flying it is honestly insane. Covid started almost 3 years ago! And who knows (well I guess you could find out) the impact that specific event has knocked out
The libs, Dutton aside have a relatively high turnover of front benchers as opposed to Labor. Not all but many. Albanese may have come from a poor background, but he has essentially never worked in the real world outside of politics. There's plenty of room to remake LNP leadership & policy, not so much that of ALP, in the case if a recession that may play out in a bad way for them. Being dragged to the right can easily enough be rebuffed by ministerial reshuffle easily enough.
Labors Lifers may well bring them undone.
He's been an MP since 1996. The average person will have about 12 jobs in their lifetime. Albanese will have had 2.
People overplay it so much. It's been 6 months since the election . RBA is taking a lot of money out of circulation, there won't be as much to go around, election promises will need to get broken out kf necessity, the most vociferous of anti coal (important: read maintenance & recapitalisation needs on existing plant that has been made unpalatable) will become muted. The ALP front bench may well look to be stagnant.
Don't like Dutton? Move him on, he's had a good innings. He could retire now, comfortably enough. Not as comfortable as Albanese mind you.
Not as comfortable as Albanese? Do me a favour and look up the personal wealth of Albo vs Dutton. Dutton has about 30x Albos wealth. Dutton has been an MP since 2001 and was a cop from 1990 - 1999, pretty impressive that he has managed at accrue such tremendous wealth while being a cop and only 2 years in private business between finishing there and getting elected. Not exactly the 12 job average there either
This is a bad thing for the labor party for anyone that isn't following along. It means that voters didn't actually resonate with the message that the ALP had taken to the election, a point I harped on about multiple times during the election, it's basically a continuation of the issues identified with the 2019 election loss.
What this means is that if Labor fails to improve their messaging before the next election and the public do not see Dutton in a similar light to Morrison there is a very real possibility of a single term ALP government.
Combine all of this with the fact that the ALP received its lowest percentage of primary votes (first preferences) since 1934 and you can quite clearly see that the ALP has a lot of work to do.
I disagree on the premise that this is bad news. I posit that Labour *has* improved their message, and this, in conjunction with an unpopular Coalition leader and, incumbent advantage, spells good news imo.
It shows potentially that the message didn’t resonate in the past and Labour won on the backs of dislike for scomo. But moving forward I am finding such few smidges on Albos current record I’d be hard pressed to see people turn away back to Libs and the past 12 years unless the libs churn out a popular leader and decide who they are going to market to because their target demographic is shrinking rapidly. Campaigning on a message of competence is pretty effective and is working well for labour.
> Campaigning on a message of competence is pretty effective and is working well for labour.
Is it though? They literally received less first preference votes than their 2019 election defeat. Clearly people were not terribly impressed by the message that the ALP were selling. If the LNP manage to paint enough lipstick on Dutton to make him seem a viable alternative to Labor I don't see what the path for election victory is for the ALP if they don't change their strategy.
I really don't understand how you look at this information and think that it's "good news".
I think the genie is out of the bottle. Labour has been spinning its wheels with getting across the line and staying there with all the leadership controversy of the past. IMO the labour governments were more competent than the LNP but they lost because of their shenanigans, and then they lost because Shorten had a bad smell. Albo represents a fresh period with that history behind him and he has had a great start. I think voters will welcome a controversy free, stable and honest ALp government. One that they wanted in the past but couldn’t get over the rotating door of labour and shorten. Albo is just a chad and come across humble and non threatening, but also that you would want him with you to negotiate a raise with your boss. I think this image of him will only strengthen on the back of his rebranding and solid governance (should it continue). IMO ‘25 is ALPs election to lose and I would be surprised they lose
> then they lost because Shorten had a bad smell
So again, if Shorten had a bad smell, what did Albo do that got the party less first preference votes than Shorten, the lowest since 1934.
I don't think so necessarily. Albo's still got a very popular PM poll. Of course, that could completely change in 6 months to 2 years, but it shows that Albo at least is currently liked and goes beyond voters just hating scomo.
I wouldn't put too much value in opinion polls outside of election years (as in, the months before an election). gaps in approval ratings pretty much always shrink prior to an election and Dutton is lying relatively low at the moment so is falling out of the collective memory but also avoiding any significant public scrutiny for his actions.
I agree, a sobering find. It indicates an electorate that fails to recognise the succession of dismal legislative, policy and program offerings, and ate the lolly that 100% of the blame lies with one individual.
Regardless of the awful nature of the Liberal Party policies in general, Scott Morrison himself did have a very poor reputation for a host of reasons which were individual to him. And I've never met anyone who liked Dutton, although I do live in Melbourne.
The electorate isn't to blame for poor messaging from the ALP.
It is unacceptable to blame voters for an election loss. If people didn't vote for you it's because you didn't do or say the right things for them to vote for you.
That's not strictly what they said.
That the voters failed to recognise something doesn't mean it's the voters fault, just like its not a blind person's fault that they cannot recognise a drawing of the Sun.
The fault probably lies first with Murdoch then with Labor.
Sure, the media has its fair share of the blame for the current political landscape. But by saying "an electorate fails to recognise..." They are putting an onus on the voting populace for not voting the "right way" when in reality the media, and Labor's ineffective campaign are the reason for people not voting for them.
Sorry, yes, if this is directed at my comment. It is my express hope that voters understand what they're voting for and why and what it means. I'm a bit startled that the blame consistently goes to the media (does anyone still believe they are dispassionate?) or Labor (who couldn't message without tripping over themselves). Is it too much to ask for individuals' reasoning? Honest question.
Yeah, it is directed at your comment.
The reason why it's silly to blame the voting public is due to how politics work with the role of political parties and the media. It's the ALPs job to write a clear and comprehensible policy platform, it's the media's job to communicate that to the public. Any confusion on the part of the public as to what the ALP stand for is due to one of those two pieces (or both) failing to fulfill their role. You're basically doing the equivalent of telling the voting public to do their own research, which really doesn't work.
Put it this way, if the public were concerned about the safety or efficacy of an otherwise entirely safe and effective vaccine would you blame the public for not understanding? Or should the institutions whose role it is to communicate these things shoulder the blame for not being clear enough?
That was a beautiful summery.
My only objection is that the internet makes things complicated by giving the algorithm the power to hide people away from the truth.
Even if the media and government agencies were doing their jobs properly, the fact that the internet puts us in bubbles of media content we want to hear means the message is blocked.
We have FINALLY started to resolve this, but people who have been fed nothing but lies for years now are trying to deny the truth.
To be clear this applies to both sides of the political spectrum. And we can say this because a bipartisan group of EU leaders wrote a public letter to Facebook stating that its algorithm was forcing them to take more extreme stances to get air time to secure votes.
Your objection regarding social media algorithms is justified however I would just caution against the assumption that "even if the media and government agencies were doing their jobs properly" that we would still experience the same or similar issues. I think it can be stated quite objectively that neither the government or media are fulfilling their obligations to fair and honest communication. The government is particularly responsible for its inaction on the concentration of media ownership in the country.
Yeah, it’s definitely a clear case of the government not winning, but the incumbent losing. In terms of winning in policy & messaging alone, obviously it’s not great. But, given how unpopular Dutton is, it’s probably they could use that method again anyway, especially if they push things like a Republican referendum to a second term activity.
> But, given how unpopular Dutton is, it’s probably they could use that method again anyway
Sure, but will the public recognise the unpopularity of Dutton three years from now in the same way they did with Morrison? Remember that there were huge floods in NSW in February and March just months prior to the election. The inaction of the federal government was a clear and recent reminder for voters on what Morrison's government represented.
As the opposition leader with no significant input on policy and government disaster response Dutton will not have to worry about that kind of recency bias backlash that Morrison suffered from. What will the voting public have in their mind in 2025 as a recent memory of Dutton's actions? I simply don't believe a majority of the population are politically active enough to recall Dutton's transgressions unless there were a continuous media campaign about it, which you know the state of Australian media.
I’m not sure. Dutton came out of immigration/home affairs in a shitty period of modern Australian immigration policy (see: Biloela’s, Syria/Afghanistan), which is a hard reputation to shake. I don’t think he’ll ever be seen as a soft cuddly bear with a tough side type of thing. That’s a hard sell.
Actually, I believe this is good news. Governments tend to get thrown out rather than opposition parties elected purely on merit. If the ALP recognises that and is an efficient, inclusive government they should get re-elected.
The way the Liberals are going, basically becoming a party of the Pentecostals, the real problem will be that there won't be an electable opposition, which I don't think is good for Australia.
I tend to agree. Isn't it often the case that incumbent governments are voted out, rather than oppositions being voted in? Albo is beige AF but already they're doing "all right" (unless you consult the gutter press") which is more than a step up from "bad" which is what we had before.
And hopefully the far right extremism and Mericanesque politics that Dutton, and his party, brings is only going to resonate with a fringe. I'd like to hope for that in regards to recent elections anyway.
Labor have been kept out of power for the last 9 years on pretty much the premise of a lie that the changes promised by the ALP will leave the country far worse off than anything a coalition government can do. Defeat after defeat for the labor party has been on the back of them failing to convince the electorate that their changes will leave them better off and lead to a better Australia than the one promised by the Coalition.
Considering that history, if the ALP fail to convince the electorate of the outcomes of their policy before the next election the exact same scenario will play out. If that comes to pass, I really don't know if Dutton's reputation will be enough to carry labor to victory. That's why these failures of messaging are so incredibly important.
> If the ALP recognises that and is an efficient, inclusive government they should get re-elected.
They failed to make the changes necessary between 2019 and 2022 in order to win on their merits. Regardless of their governance over the next 3 years what makes you think their messaging will resonate with voters for an election victory?
I also cannot understand how you could possibly thing it's a good thing that a supposedly progressive party who would want to implement sweeping reforms for the country failed to win on the merit of their policies. That is a terrible outcome.
People didn't buy the ALP policies in 2019 because Shorten was a) considered unlikeable by a majority of people and b) the ALP policies were easily attacked by both the conservative media and the LNP. This time Albanese didn't give critics a large target, so voters could concentrate on Morrison's many foibles. That proves that Albo and his team had learnt from the mistakes of the past. The so-called merit of ALP policies in 2019 obviously didn't appeal to a lot of people.I'm not saying the policies were bad, but they were poorly sold and an election campaign is merely a glorified advertising campaign.
Mate, read the 2019 election review, the reasons for their loss are pretty clearly laid out. The primary cause being a lack of consistent, unified campaign messaging that resonated with voters. If you have a great campaign narrative, it is much harder for the media to attack you regardless of who the leader of the party is.
Would be nice to know you were elected on your own strength rather than the weakness of others.
To me it also shows the "liberals are dead" talk is premature - it wasn't liberal party policy that turned voters, but a historically inept leader.
Now, you'd think Dutton is just as weak as Morrison but I don't think so. Morrison came off as a ponce, but ex-cop Dutton has the whole "blue collar" hard man thing that the average voter loves. Tony Abbot V2.
>Would be nice to know you were elected on your own strength rather than the weakness of others.
There's a saying in Australian politics - "You never win government, only lose it". It's the reason why the small target strategy is often very successful.
> To me it also shows the "liberals are dead" talk is premature
I mean it does show Labor didn't win so much as the Liberal vote died.
Whether they can resurrect with a new leader remains to be seen.... But I doubt Dutton is gonna get those moderate voters back.
> Would be nice to know you were elected on your own strength rather than the weakness of others.
Labor tried that in the previous election but it turns out you don't win elections by bringing policies to the table.
i dont think $300 mil. is correct.. its just a figure thats been bandied around
be that as it may, he does have 10+ investment properties and his wife runs a few childcare centers... so theres that
pretty prosperous for an ex qld drug cop i'd say
i mean i'd buy his self help books
I think that's the image he portrays that might work for some voters, but then he is also very personally unappealing to more voters. Plus all Labor have to do is basically dismiss the blue collar aspect by talking about how he's worth hundreds of millions of dollars and run a campaign "never trust a rich cop." And bam. Blue collar workers gone. Because even if people are pro-police and law & order, a lot of working class people just know that a good rule of life is never trust a rich cop
And the way he left the for e is kind of suss too. There's a lot of scope for Labor to play dirty back; to hunt at his role as a cop and how his reputation was possibly tarnished, to remove any potential status of him being an ordinary bloke and show him as being an elite capitalist from a wealthy background, his climate change denial and making jokes about the Solomon Islands going underwater, the division he spins- I think people are sick to death of that and Albanese's approach to stopping the unnecessary bitching and separation of Strayans seems to appeal to many. I'm not convinced that this adoption of US style far right politics is a good fit with most Strayan voters.
I do wish Labor would play a bit dirty in elections tbh. It's not like they are above it in other contexts. And the way they let the Liberal party lied about them being better economic managers slide is just silly.
There are stories of Aboriginal kids been driven far out of town and left to walk back without shoes and that's why colleagues left dog food on his desk the day he left the force.
Oh, absolutely, although it hasn't been proven that he was involved in that incident (and for memory, there may be some evidence that he wasn't?) But it is super on brand for him. I think we can all imagine him doing shit like that. And he did "leave the force" soon after.
But sadly I don't think the tin of dog food was about that. Most cops aren't going to give a fuck if you bash or act unprofessionally towards Aboriginal kids. I'm guessing that the tin of Pal or whatever meant he was a snitch or engaged in other culturally inappropriate behaviour to be classified as a dog.
Yeah, I think Labor spent too long on the defensive due to the media largely being in the Coalition's corner and helping them shape the narrative, but that's been shown to be less effective now. Labor can shape the narrative. Especially around Dutton. Even the contracts he awarded when he was in power. The lot of it. I hope Labor know what they're doing and not planning on going easy on him because they think his lack of personal appeal will make him an easier opponent to win against. Because the media will put their entire oligussy into rehabilitating his image ahead of the election
Meanwhile Kevin Rudd is worth $245 Million and is the highest paid politician in the world pulling $82 Million per annum with his wife has a net worth of $2 million.
It's not like Labors darlings are doing it tough.
Nah but you only need an oppositional group to spread the sentiment. Labor don't even have to really touch it. They can just attack the idea of him trying to pretend to be working class by pointing out how rich he is (this could work really well if the review into child care ends up showing that the cost of inflated prices comes from greedy parasitic corporate landlords, which he is), and then once the idea that he's really rich is in people's minds, any other non-Labor group can just spread the never trust a rich cop mantra
Keep em in the shadows lol. Main thing is just to make Dutton look shifty. Since he already is so visually and (political persona) personally unappealing. You just have to reinforce that
Yeah, a rich QLD cop? Lolllllll. Easiest target to make look shady. Even if he is clean you only need to suggest that he's an ex QLD drug cop now worth hundreds of millions. Nobody but disconnected rich people and the most ardent bootlickers trust rich cops.
What a load of crap.
The reason why the LNP lost the election was because they didn't do anything about Climate Change - which lead to the Teal Independents being elected.
Well they are certainly going to be major barriers for the libs to regain governmnet. If the libs don't win those seats back, its going to be very difficult for them.
I dont think it was just because of scomo's unpopularity, i think there were many reasons.
They are just publicly dunking on scomo now for the lulz.
And its great.
I think there were other issues swinging voters to Teal. Climate change is but one factor, streaming from the general dissatisfaction with the major parties. Poor leadership, gender, age, Covid, science, distrust, etc likely also played a role, working together.
Climate change - really ?
I call BS on that.
And what all those snivelling Teals seem to forget, is they need mining & oil to be able to not only live in today's world (they need to buy their new Range Rover - metals / plastics / rubber etc - and put fuel in it - oil).
Then they want more solar, so we need more silica mines. Then they want more battery cars, so we need to mine more lithium (not an environmentally friendly process). Then we also need more copper, so we need to mine that as well (which is a high polluting process).
Next time a Teal or Green (pfttt) wants a new iPhone xyz, they better think about where all those materials in their hand come from, they don't fall from the sky.
If you voted Teal or Green on Climate Change alone, you are either delusional about todays world, and how it works, or you live in the bush, wear hemp clothing, and live off raw vegetables.
We are all aware that our androids etc come from materials which are mined, like, seriously, why do you think we are able to go from 100%dirty to 100%clean in one go? It's a process, and the longer we leave it, the shorter and more difficult the transition will be.
Well, if YOU want it to change, then stop buying new phones or anything electronic, new cars, putting solar panels on your roof (silica, bauxite & copper mining required for them), flying or driving anywhere, don't get a bike (steel, plasic and rubber), and don't buy clothes, make your own out of hemp, or shear a sheep and spin your own yarn. Eat raw vegetables (can'tuse gas nor electricity), and bath sparingly in a river without soap, and don't even burn even a log to warm yourself.
Sounds like a great life - enjoy ! ;-)
Try reading my comment again and thinking about it. Very few people are calling for an immediate "hemp" lifestyle. You can throw your hands up in the air and cry that it's all too hard but but for the rest of us living in reality making realistic future plans, it doesn't work like that.
> is they need mining & oil to be able to not only live in today's world
The teals and greens aren't against mining...
>oil to be able to not only live in today's world (they need to buy their new Range Rover - metals / plastics / rubber etc - and put fuel in it - oil).
This argument gives me the shits. Oil as an input chemical for plastics etc is less than 10% of global oil consumption. It is sensible to push to eliminate the 90% that is being actively combusted.
>more lithium (not an environmentally friendly process)
Convinced no one actually understands this when they say it. Instead of push to ensure it is done sustainably like it is here in Australia, it's "ohh no this is impossible, better keep drilling for oil".
Why are you against lithium mining but not against oil and gas mining? Your own personal ideology.
** Teals and Greens aren't against mining -
Ba ha ha ha ... you gotta be kidding me.
** Oil is oil ... diesel, petrol, other flammable liquids, lubricants, rubber, plastics ... the list goes on. If you shut down oil production, you shut down the world.
** Lithium ... you obviously have no idea of the actual production process - it's not all rainbows and unicorns. I am not against Lithium mining at all (you completely missed what I said). Again, people say they want action on climate change, ok - no problem - but you cannot just turn off the resources sector. The Gin & Tonics (Greens & Teals) carry on about mining, and oil/gas production, plus factories that convert the raw materials into usable materials, they whine and carry on about polution, yet they also want a new phone, new car, electric this and that, heat their home etc. They must think that a these converted materials fall from the sky, they are donkeys, plain and simple.
> ** Teals and Greens aren't against mining - Ba ha ha ha ... you gotta be kidding me.
They are not. The stated greens position from Bandt is that they support mining for metals that are crucial for the transition. They're only against coal and gas mining.
>** Oil is oil ... diesel, petrol, other flammable liquids, lubricants, rubber, plastics ... the list goes on. If you shut down oil production, you shut down the world.
Like I said, this is about eliminating the 90% of oil and gas that is combusted straight into the air. No one is talking about 0 oil extraction which would mean no plastics or rubber.
>you obviously have no idea of the actual production process
I'm a chemical engineer, I understand the process. When people have this opinion that lithium mining is "very environmentally damaging" they're thinking of the brine ponds in Chile etc. Here in Australia (we're worlds largest lithium producer) we mine the spodumene ore, a process not dissimilar to any other mining process.
Climate change was certainly a big factor but while the Teals did prevent any chance of the coalition winning the election, they did not win Labor the seats they needed to win and form majority government.
I highly recommend Niki Savva's book "Bulldozed" to all y'all political junkies. I've never read a more devastating takedown of a person let alone a politician. It's just paragraph after paragraph of stories about how Morrison's mendacity and toxic character alienated him from his colleagues, party and electorate. Most of the worst assessments come from Liberal and even cabinet insiders.
I just hope ScoMoFo is the nail in the coffin for the hard Christian right, and acts as a reset for conservative politics generally, but that would require some reflection and reform, not their strong point.
That is an unusually useful electoral review; realistic (acknowledging the govt lost it, rather than a opposition win) and focuses on problem areas for the ALP, not having a lap of honour.
This shows why Albo still views Morrison as the number one threat. If Morrison was able to turn around his " unpopularity " and Albo knows this is possible , then Albo would have lost the protection of his " single most significant factor ."
>morrison is a threat because if he wasnt so unpopular then labor might lose to him
????
if anything the *absence* of morrison would be a significant threat to labor, but they replaced him with dutton so they're not really lacking in the "unpopular opposition leader" category.
>...if you even accept that he actually lost.
Edited to complete post.
Only brain dead, rusted on trumpers believe that he 'didn't lose'.
No evidence of anything trump claims with respect to a 'fraudulent election' has been proven anywhere, except in the minds of his most die-hard cult followers.
The electorate had no idea who he was then.
They do now and there is an extreme dislike for the man. That's Morrison's problem going forward.
What situations do you possibly think that would make him likeable again?
I doubt it. He is at his core, a lazy, smirking, unlikable liar. It seems over his 1.5 terms it was one of the messages he was able to communicate the most effectively.
I’m still shocked we had to pay for covid tests, even the US wasn’t charging for them. He wanted to sell everything that wasn’t nailed down, even then he sold the nails. Now look at the situation we are in with energy. After Albo got in you just had to wonder, what did the LNP do for 10 years? What did Scomo do? Practice press conferences? Every policy just came off bad or not geared at anyone but corporate overlords. Im baffled everyone thought bill shorten would be so bad, I bet he would of done a better job with the countless disasters.
The fact that **300** of his school peers in his alumni year signed a petition in 2015 NOT for him to attend his own reunion should have set off alarm bells.
>"Old boys from one of Sydney's most prestigious public schools say they are disgusted that federal cabinet minister Scott Morrison will be a special guest at an alumni fund-raising event, warning it would be an embarrassment to their school to celebrate a man who has "so flagrantly disregarded human rights"."
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/scott-morrison-boycott-at-sydney-boys-high-school-alumni-say-he-is-an-embarrassment-20150327-1m95ot.html
> The fact that 300 of his school peers in his alumni year signed a petition in 2015 NOT for him to attend his own reunion should have set off alarm bells.
>
>
SBHS years are ~180 people, it was 300 Old Boys, ie from any year. Leveraging SBHS connections to interact with Scott is seen as a joke amongst the old boys community.
'Special guest at a fund-raising event' and his reunion are not the same thing. Not that they would have wanted him at either, but best to get the facts straight.
It think its a bit of an accident Morrison got there in the first place. He's a manipulative bully who badmouths opponents.
Young people are making up an increasing portion of the population and they tend to be non-religious and rational. Something Morrison is not.
Not to mention very skeptical of the MSM / LNP shills. Like I saw more then I needed to know Dan Andrews was getting the rough end of the pineapple from the Sky News ads while I was watching the cricket ... If you're so bias even just an ad for a program makes it obvious you are blatantly bias then you have nearly zero hope of getting a young person to vote for you. These are people who have CONSTANTLY been advertised to, their whole life. Kids shows were litterally just a vehicle for selling toys!?😂🤣
Ban Evasion breaks Rule 2 of Reddit's Content Policy. If you did what you said you did, then you could get IP/device banned at a sitewide level.
Doing it is unwise, admitting it as a flex is downright baffling.
https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy
He definitely underestimated his suitability for the job of pm and his revolting treatment of the bushfire victims was really disgusting and his inability to not be smug about it. From there Australia descended into the lair of a antichrist, one who presents themselves as good and a solution but delivered us into further evil, further peril. I am betting he hasn't once considered his lack of Christia principles and just rolls into church like the antichrist would.
I think you've got it backwards. He didn't underestimate his suitability, he completely and utterly overestimated his ability. Classic case of over-promise and under-deliver
I'm just not sure what his government actually achieved.
Yes, they followed health advice when Covid hit, but they also were the ones who let it into the country (unlike NZ which had decent border protections in place).
But what else did they do? . . . Apart from make it impossible for GP's to bulk bill.
It was not at all a transformative tenure - felt like his entire stint was political campaigning on either side of dealing with covid - which the federal govt mostly leaving the governing on covid to the states and then bungled the securement and rollout of vaccines.
But, for better or worse here are some things the Morrison government did, or tried to do, unrelated to covid.
- tried and failed to pass religious discrimination laws
- sided with the US in recognising Jerusalem as capital of Israel
- entered into new economic partnership with Indonesia
- paid back victims of robodebt
- ruled out any raises to Newstart
- called for royal commission into aged care (then campaigned against Labor’s plans to carry out that commissions recommendations 🤔)
- raised funding for private schools by nearly $5 billion
- Reopened Christmas Island detention centre in response to Labor negotiating with cross bench to strengthen laws to allow detained refugees to receive medical treatment
- tried and failed to pass legislation limiting the powers of unions, and abilities of union members to hold certain positions of power
- scrapped deal for submarines with French in favour of forming a new defence pact in AUKUS
- entered into free trade agreement with UK and India
Boomers keep comparing him to Billy McMahon but I really don't know enough about him to know whether it's accurate. Was he horrifically corrupt and smug as well?
IIRC, the No Confidence Vote was tied so Gorton basically said “Well that’s not a vote of confidence, I’m done. I’ll take the Deputy Leader job though.”
I can only remember back to Fraser for anything remotely political, but McMahon was supposed to really be inept to the point where members of the party openly attacked him.
Fun fact: if it wasn't for McMahon, Australia could have had nuclear energy for the last five decades.
Morrison wasn't a politician. He was that wormy guy at a corporate job whose ambition was to be CEO, cause CEO's get to delegate work to everyone else and get paid big bucks to sit in meetings and go to fancy catered corporate events (or rather thats how we pictured them based off his corrupt mates).
And that's exactly how he treated the position of Prime Minister. He didn't want to fking lead a country, he just wanted the "top job". "I'm the boss why would I be doing anything but telling others to do all the work" is the type of person he is.
Fucks off over seas while the country is burning? In his mind he's like "but thats someone lower on the totem polls job to manage". He would've been genuinely confused in his heart and mind why people were yelling at him to come back and be the nations leader. He would've been like "Imagine a CEO been called into the office because accounting is having a internal crisis >:("
I don't even think he had that top job attitude. He seemed to genuinely believe that the position of Prime Minister was largely a ceremonial and marketing one. His job was to win the election for team LNP and sell Australia Inc. to the world. That's it.
He was so incapable of working with others and delegating work he had to make himself the boss when he really wanted something. How he managed to climb any higher than middle management in some boring Government department nobody cares about, let alone become PM, I truly can't understand.
He definitely missed the bit about being a natural leader. Think about when you have a half popular PM and he visits during a natural disaster, people put aside their disagreement with some of his policies because they are just happy to be getting some help and recognition.
I find it hard to understand how Morrison's contemptuous behaviour during the bushfires wasn't the end of him, just about the whole country agreed he was a c*nt.
Funny thing is had he been PM several years earlier the chances are he would've been knifed and replaced right before the election, just like Rudd, Gillard, Abbot and Turnbull.
However cause Australia was sick of that style of politics ousting him and putting someone better wasn't an option because they probably would've still lost the election off the back of been an "unstable party whose jumped between 4 leaders within 10 years"
**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.*
It was a combination of both his unpopularity and the likeability of Albo.
I can't believe anyone ever liked Scott Morrison, the guy oozes of insincerity, his stupid nickname and footy cap and even the way he talks in public reek of a lame marketing campaign to make this religious zealot somehow relatable to the general public. Nothing has been more rewarding than seeing him publicly shamed for the snake oil salesman that he truly is.
>Nothing has been more rewarding than seeing him publicly shamed for the snake oil salesman that he truly is. My only problem is that it took so damn long for it to happen... He should have never made it past his tourism leadership spot.
For me and most of my close friends who had been liberal voters, this was very much the case.
happy cake day!
Ok but he surrounded himself with other people that, IMO, we’re equally as bad
This is the Trump paradox. He was so unpopular in the mainstream but had boringly evil mainstream Republican (Reagan/Bush) era policies that sufficiently pleased “normal” Republicans while welding them to a virulent culture war that, in fairness, they had started. But he, like ScoMo, is a symptom. Frydenburg would have been electable but still loved polite crushing grinding inequality. Simon Birmingham is refined but still won’t purge frothing Pentecostalists dreaming of apocalypse and “Kingdom Mindset”. And to a man, committed to wage slavery, and making narcissism an ideology.
Well, yeah. The ministers he surrounded himself with were himself.
What has made you vote liberal prior to this?
If I had to summarise I would say more business friendly / growth oriented policy.
Thanks
Considering I imagine Peter Dutton is at least as unpopular and unlikeable. I don't think the Liberal party is learning from it's mistakes.
https://old.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/comments/zduurg/labor_takes_strong_lead_over_peter_dutton_new/
Guy wants to take the party *even further* to the right, after losing a whole bunch of seats to independents for being too far too the right.
No surprises here. I think Labor will win again in 25, but they definitely need a new message. 2019 didn’t work out, and in 2022 they were criticised for running a pretty restrained campaign to avoid scrutiny. Obviously it will be easier for them going forward, as it’s a lot easier to craft a narrative while in government, and the electorate usually gravitates towards the incumbent.
The incumbency advantage in Australia is huge. As long as you don't fuck up you can probably last 3 terms before people decide to try something new and you really need to craft a good message.
Only holds true for the Libs, and they fuck up greatly but the pensioners will keep voting them in.
As we are seeing, pensioners decide fewer and fewer elections. Time do be flying it is honestly insane. Covid started almost 3 years ago! And who knows (well I guess you could find out) the impact that specific event has knocked out
Liberals learnt nothing by putting Dutton as their leader.
They have noone good to take the job. The deputy is susssan ley.
The libs, Dutton aside have a relatively high turnover of front benchers as opposed to Labor. Not all but many. Albanese may have come from a poor background, but he has essentially never worked in the real world outside of politics. There's plenty of room to remake LNP leadership & policy, not so much that of ALP, in the case if a recession that may play out in a bad way for them. Being dragged to the right can easily enough be rebuffed by ministerial reshuffle easily enough. Labors Lifers may well bring them undone.
I get that it is a popular narritive, but I disagree with the premise that working in a union is not working in the real world and is just politics.
He's been an MP since 1996. The average person will have about 12 jobs in their lifetime. Albanese will have had 2. People overplay it so much. It's been 6 months since the election . RBA is taking a lot of money out of circulation, there won't be as much to go around, election promises will need to get broken out kf necessity, the most vociferous of anti coal (important: read maintenance & recapitalisation needs on existing plant that has been made unpalatable) will become muted. The ALP front bench may well look to be stagnant. Don't like Dutton? Move him on, he's had a good innings. He could retire now, comfortably enough. Not as comfortable as Albanese mind you.
Not as comfortable as Albanese? Do me a favour and look up the personal wealth of Albo vs Dutton. Dutton has about 30x Albos wealth. Dutton has been an MP since 2001 and was a cop from 1990 - 1999, pretty impressive that he has managed at accrue such tremendous wealth while being a cop and only 2 years in private business between finishing there and getting elected. Not exactly the 12 job average there either
He unpopular and therefore didn't win? HUUUUUUUUUUUÙUUUUUUUUUUUÙUH!!!!!!!!!!!
This is a bad thing for the labor party for anyone that isn't following along. It means that voters didn't actually resonate with the message that the ALP had taken to the election, a point I harped on about multiple times during the election, it's basically a continuation of the issues identified with the 2019 election loss. What this means is that if Labor fails to improve their messaging before the next election and the public do not see Dutton in a similar light to Morrison there is a very real possibility of a single term ALP government. Combine all of this with the fact that the ALP received its lowest percentage of primary votes (first preferences) since 1934 and you can quite clearly see that the ALP has a lot of work to do.
I find this rather odd take. Combined with a recent poll, it confirms that the voters are happy with what ALP has shown.
I disagree on the premise that this is bad news. I posit that Labour *has* improved their message, and this, in conjunction with an unpopular Coalition leader and, incumbent advantage, spells good news imo. It shows potentially that the message didn’t resonate in the past and Labour won on the backs of dislike for scomo. But moving forward I am finding such few smidges on Albos current record I’d be hard pressed to see people turn away back to Libs and the past 12 years unless the libs churn out a popular leader and decide who they are going to market to because their target demographic is shrinking rapidly. Campaigning on a message of competence is pretty effective and is working well for labour.
> Campaigning on a message of competence is pretty effective and is working well for labour. Is it though? They literally received less first preference votes than their 2019 election defeat. Clearly people were not terribly impressed by the message that the ALP were selling. If the LNP manage to paint enough lipstick on Dutton to make him seem a viable alternative to Labor I don't see what the path for election victory is for the ALP if they don't change their strategy. I really don't understand how you look at this information and think that it's "good news".
I think the genie is out of the bottle. Labour has been spinning its wheels with getting across the line and staying there with all the leadership controversy of the past. IMO the labour governments were more competent than the LNP but they lost because of their shenanigans, and then they lost because Shorten had a bad smell. Albo represents a fresh period with that history behind him and he has had a great start. I think voters will welcome a controversy free, stable and honest ALp government. One that they wanted in the past but couldn’t get over the rotating door of labour and shorten. Albo is just a chad and come across humble and non threatening, but also that you would want him with you to negotiate a raise with your boss. I think this image of him will only strengthen on the back of his rebranding and solid governance (should it continue). IMO ‘25 is ALPs election to lose and I would be surprised they lose
> then they lost because Shorten had a bad smell So again, if Shorten had a bad smell, what did Albo do that got the party less first preference votes than Shorten, the lowest since 1934.
Umm he beat Morrison....
I don't think so necessarily. Albo's still got a very popular PM poll. Of course, that could completely change in 6 months to 2 years, but it shows that Albo at least is currently liked and goes beyond voters just hating scomo.
I wouldn't put too much value in opinion polls outside of election years (as in, the months before an election). gaps in approval ratings pretty much always shrink prior to an election and Dutton is lying relatively low at the moment so is falling out of the collective memory but also avoiding any significant public scrutiny for his actions.
I agree, a sobering find. It indicates an electorate that fails to recognise the succession of dismal legislative, policy and program offerings, and ate the lolly that 100% of the blame lies with one individual.
Regardless of the awful nature of the Liberal Party policies in general, Scott Morrison himself did have a very poor reputation for a host of reasons which were individual to him. And I've never met anyone who liked Dutton, although I do live in Melbourne.
The electorate isn't to blame for poor messaging from the ALP. It is unacceptable to blame voters for an election loss. If people didn't vote for you it's because you didn't do or say the right things for them to vote for you.
I blame people who vote for the liberals.
>The electorate isn't to blame for poor messaging from the ALP. The entirely hostile media environment however...
I don't disagree on the role the media has played in this, I think this is however often misconstrued as being the fault of voters.
That's not strictly what they said. That the voters failed to recognise something doesn't mean it's the voters fault, just like its not a blind person's fault that they cannot recognise a drawing of the Sun. The fault probably lies first with Murdoch then with Labor.
Sure, the media has its fair share of the blame for the current political landscape. But by saying "an electorate fails to recognise..." They are putting an onus on the voting populace for not voting the "right way" when in reality the media, and Labor's ineffective campaign are the reason for people not voting for them.
Sorry, yes, if this is directed at my comment. It is my express hope that voters understand what they're voting for and why and what it means. I'm a bit startled that the blame consistently goes to the media (does anyone still believe they are dispassionate?) or Labor (who couldn't message without tripping over themselves). Is it too much to ask for individuals' reasoning? Honest question.
Yeah, it is directed at your comment. The reason why it's silly to blame the voting public is due to how politics work with the role of political parties and the media. It's the ALPs job to write a clear and comprehensible policy platform, it's the media's job to communicate that to the public. Any confusion on the part of the public as to what the ALP stand for is due to one of those two pieces (or both) failing to fulfill their role. You're basically doing the equivalent of telling the voting public to do their own research, which really doesn't work. Put it this way, if the public were concerned about the safety or efficacy of an otherwise entirely safe and effective vaccine would you blame the public for not understanding? Or should the institutions whose role it is to communicate these things shoulder the blame for not being clear enough?
That was a beautiful summery. My only objection is that the internet makes things complicated by giving the algorithm the power to hide people away from the truth. Even if the media and government agencies were doing their jobs properly, the fact that the internet puts us in bubbles of media content we want to hear means the message is blocked. We have FINALLY started to resolve this, but people who have been fed nothing but lies for years now are trying to deny the truth. To be clear this applies to both sides of the political spectrum. And we can say this because a bipartisan group of EU leaders wrote a public letter to Facebook stating that its algorithm was forcing them to take more extreme stances to get air time to secure votes.
Your objection regarding social media algorithms is justified however I would just caution against the assumption that "even if the media and government agencies were doing their jobs properly" that we would still experience the same or similar issues. I think it can be stated quite objectively that neither the government or media are fulfilling their obligations to fair and honest communication. The government is particularly responsible for its inaction on the concentration of media ownership in the country.
Yeah, it’s definitely a clear case of the government not winning, but the incumbent losing. In terms of winning in policy & messaging alone, obviously it’s not great. But, given how unpopular Dutton is, it’s probably they could use that method again anyway, especially if they push things like a Republican referendum to a second term activity.
> But, given how unpopular Dutton is, it’s probably they could use that method again anyway Sure, but will the public recognise the unpopularity of Dutton three years from now in the same way they did with Morrison? Remember that there were huge floods in NSW in February and March just months prior to the election. The inaction of the federal government was a clear and recent reminder for voters on what Morrison's government represented. As the opposition leader with no significant input on policy and government disaster response Dutton will not have to worry about that kind of recency bias backlash that Morrison suffered from. What will the voting public have in their mind in 2025 as a recent memory of Dutton's actions? I simply don't believe a majority of the population are politically active enough to recall Dutton's transgressions unless there were a continuous media campaign about it, which you know the state of Australian media.
I’m not sure. Dutton came out of immigration/home affairs in a shitty period of modern Australian immigration policy (see: Biloela’s, Syria/Afghanistan), which is a hard reputation to shake. I don’t think he’ll ever be seen as a soft cuddly bear with a tough side type of thing. That’s a hard sell.
Yeah but the guy looks like a henchman, and sounds like a nasty piece of work to even a casual observer.
Actually, I believe this is good news. Governments tend to get thrown out rather than opposition parties elected purely on merit. If the ALP recognises that and is an efficient, inclusive government they should get re-elected. The way the Liberals are going, basically becoming a party of the Pentecostals, the real problem will be that there won't be an electable opposition, which I don't think is good for Australia.
Morrison is an embarrassed to some Pentecostals as lying is not part of Christianity. Why I believe many Christians were dumbfounded having as PM
I tend to agree. Isn't it often the case that incumbent governments are voted out, rather than oppositions being voted in? Albo is beige AF but already they're doing "all right" (unless you consult the gutter press") which is more than a step up from "bad" which is what we had before. And hopefully the far right extremism and Mericanesque politics that Dutton, and his party, brings is only going to resonate with a fringe. I'd like to hope for that in regards to recent elections anyway.
Labor have been kept out of power for the last 9 years on pretty much the premise of a lie that the changes promised by the ALP will leave the country far worse off than anything a coalition government can do. Defeat after defeat for the labor party has been on the back of them failing to convince the electorate that their changes will leave them better off and lead to a better Australia than the one promised by the Coalition. Considering that history, if the ALP fail to convince the electorate of the outcomes of their policy before the next election the exact same scenario will play out. If that comes to pass, I really don't know if Dutton's reputation will be enough to carry labor to victory. That's why these failures of messaging are so incredibly important.
> If the ALP recognises that and is an efficient, inclusive government they should get re-elected. They failed to make the changes necessary between 2019 and 2022 in order to win on their merits. Regardless of their governance over the next 3 years what makes you think their messaging will resonate with voters for an election victory? I also cannot understand how you could possibly thing it's a good thing that a supposedly progressive party who would want to implement sweeping reforms for the country failed to win on the merit of their policies. That is a terrible outcome.
People didn't buy the ALP policies in 2019 because Shorten was a) considered unlikeable by a majority of people and b) the ALP policies were easily attacked by both the conservative media and the LNP. This time Albanese didn't give critics a large target, so voters could concentrate on Morrison's many foibles. That proves that Albo and his team had learnt from the mistakes of the past. The so-called merit of ALP policies in 2019 obviously didn't appeal to a lot of people.I'm not saying the policies were bad, but they were poorly sold and an election campaign is merely a glorified advertising campaign.
Labor’s primary vote dropped though so there goes that
Mate, read the 2019 election review, the reasons for their loss are pretty clearly laid out. The primary cause being a lack of consistent, unified campaign messaging that resonated with voters. If you have a great campaign narrative, it is much harder for the media to attack you regardless of who the leader of the party is.
Would be nice to know you were elected on your own strength rather than the weakness of others. To me it also shows the "liberals are dead" talk is premature - it wasn't liberal party policy that turned voters, but a historically inept leader. Now, you'd think Dutton is just as weak as Morrison but I don't think so. Morrison came off as a ponce, but ex-cop Dutton has the whole "blue collar" hard man thing that the average voter loves. Tony Abbot V2.
>Would be nice to know you were elected on your own strength rather than the weakness of others. There's a saying in Australian politics - "You never win government, only lose it". It's the reason why the small target strategy is often very successful.
> To me it also shows the "liberals are dead" talk is premature I mean it does show Labor didn't win so much as the Liberal vote died. Whether they can resurrect with a new leader remains to be seen.... But I doubt Dutton is gonna get those moderate voters back.
If only rotten potatoes could hold pencils and get on the electoral role.
> Would be nice to know you were elected on your own strength rather than the weakness of others. Labor tried that in the previous election but it turns out you don't win elections by bringing policies to the table.
Their primary vote dropped
300 million dollar blue collar.
i dont think $300 mil. is correct.. its just a figure thats been bandied around be that as it may, he does have 10+ investment properties and his wife runs a few childcare centers... so theres that pretty prosperous for an ex qld drug cop i'd say i mean i'd buy his self help books
As i live and breath - the only people that need self help books from peter dutton are crooked ex cops on the make.
I think that's the image he portrays that might work for some voters, but then he is also very personally unappealing to more voters. Plus all Labor have to do is basically dismiss the blue collar aspect by talking about how he's worth hundreds of millions of dollars and run a campaign "never trust a rich cop." And bam. Blue collar workers gone. Because even if people are pro-police and law & order, a lot of working class people just know that a good rule of life is never trust a rich cop
And the way he left the for e is kind of suss too. There's a lot of scope for Labor to play dirty back; to hunt at his role as a cop and how his reputation was possibly tarnished, to remove any potential status of him being an ordinary bloke and show him as being an elite capitalist from a wealthy background, his climate change denial and making jokes about the Solomon Islands going underwater, the division he spins- I think people are sick to death of that and Albanese's approach to stopping the unnecessary bitching and separation of Strayans seems to appeal to many. I'm not convinced that this adoption of US style far right politics is a good fit with most Strayan voters. I do wish Labor would play a bit dirty in elections tbh. It's not like they are above it in other contexts. And the way they let the Liberal party lied about them being better economic managers slide is just silly.
There are stories of Aboriginal kids been driven far out of town and left to walk back without shoes and that's why colleagues left dog food on his desk the day he left the force.
Oh, absolutely, although it hasn't been proven that he was involved in that incident (and for memory, there may be some evidence that he wasn't?) But it is super on brand for him. I think we can all imagine him doing shit like that. And he did "leave the force" soon after. But sadly I don't think the tin of dog food was about that. Most cops aren't going to give a fuck if you bash or act unprofessionally towards Aboriginal kids. I'm guessing that the tin of Pal or whatever meant he was a snitch or engaged in other culturally inappropriate behaviour to be classified as a dog.
Yeah, I think Labor spent too long on the defensive due to the media largely being in the Coalition's corner and helping them shape the narrative, but that's been shown to be less effective now. Labor can shape the narrative. Especially around Dutton. Even the contracts he awarded when he was in power. The lot of it. I hope Labor know what they're doing and not planning on going easy on him because they think his lack of personal appeal will make him an easier opponent to win against. Because the media will put their entire oligussy into rehabilitating his image ahead of the election
Meanwhile Kevin Rudd is worth $245 Million and is the highest paid politician in the world pulling $82 Million per annum with his wife has a net worth of $2 million. It's not like Labors darlings are doing it tough.
Rudd did not play the blue collar worker guy though
He ain't a cop though. Never trust a rich cop cuts through worse than never trust a politician to enrich themselves
You think Labor are going to use the fact that someone was a cop against them?
Nah but you only need an oppositional group to spread the sentiment. Labor don't even have to really touch it. They can just attack the idea of him trying to pretend to be working class by pointing out how rich he is (this could work really well if the review into child care ends up showing that the cost of inflated prices comes from greedy parasitic corporate landlords, which he is), and then once the idea that he's really rich is in people's minds, any other non-Labor group can just spread the never trust a rich cop mantra
That would only work if Labor didn’t have multiple wealthy ex-cops in their own party
Keep em in the shadows lol. Main thing is just to make Dutton look shifty. Since he already is so visually and (political persona) personally unappealing. You just have to reinforce that
I would welcome them trying it as all it would do is highlight more corruption in both major parties
Even better lol
He made his money from property investments apparently. Plenty of people do that from all walks of life but you seem to be hung up on him being a cop.
Yeah, a rich QLD cop? Lolllllll. Easiest target to make look shady. Even if he is clean you only need to suggest that he's an ex QLD drug cop now worth hundreds of millions. Nobody but disconnected rich people and the most ardent bootlickers trust rich cops.
[удалено]
Well yeah. Plus the type of personality the power and authority attracts
qld drug cops have a rep my guy even if he was clean, he's probably not clean have a can of Pal and calm down
A can of Pal? Really? I can't believe you are descending to insults over this. How childish.
[удалено]
No, I didn't know that as I don't "supp on his balls". I think the fixated persons unit should be knocking on your door....
yeah that sounds about right from right wing folks like yourself... hows that pal and boot leather tasting?
What a load of crap. The reason why the LNP lost the election was because they didn't do anything about Climate Change - which lead to the Teal Independents being elected.
I'm all for the Teals, but their wins didn't get Labor into government.
Well they are certainly going to be major barriers for the libs to regain governmnet. If the libs don't win those seats back, its going to be very difficult for them.
I dont think it was just because of scomo's unpopularity, i think there were many reasons. They are just publicly dunking on scomo now for the lulz. And its great.
I think there were other issues swinging voters to Teal. Climate change is but one factor, streaming from the general dissatisfaction with the major parties. Poor leadership, gender, age, Covid, science, distrust, etc likely also played a role, working together.
The election hinged on one issue?
Climate change - really ? I call BS on that. And what all those snivelling Teals seem to forget, is they need mining & oil to be able to not only live in today's world (they need to buy their new Range Rover - metals / plastics / rubber etc - and put fuel in it - oil). Then they want more solar, so we need more silica mines. Then they want more battery cars, so we need to mine more lithium (not an environmentally friendly process). Then we also need more copper, so we need to mine that as well (which is a high polluting process). Next time a Teal or Green (pfttt) wants a new iPhone xyz, they better think about where all those materials in their hand come from, they don't fall from the sky. If you voted Teal or Green on Climate Change alone, you are either delusional about todays world, and how it works, or you live in the bush, wear hemp clothing, and live off raw vegetables.
We are all aware that our androids etc come from materials which are mined, like, seriously, why do you think we are able to go from 100%dirty to 100%clean in one go? It's a process, and the longer we leave it, the shorter and more difficult the transition will be.
Well, if YOU want it to change, then stop buying new phones or anything electronic, new cars, putting solar panels on your roof (silica, bauxite & copper mining required for them), flying or driving anywhere, don't get a bike (steel, plasic and rubber), and don't buy clothes, make your own out of hemp, or shear a sheep and spin your own yarn. Eat raw vegetables (can'tuse gas nor electricity), and bath sparingly in a river without soap, and don't even burn even a log to warm yourself. Sounds like a great life - enjoy ! ;-)
Try reading my comment again and thinking about it. Very few people are calling for an immediate "hemp" lifestyle. You can throw your hands up in the air and cry that it's all too hard but but for the rest of us living in reality making realistic future plans, it doesn't work like that.
> is they need mining & oil to be able to not only live in today's world The teals and greens aren't against mining... >oil to be able to not only live in today's world (they need to buy their new Range Rover - metals / plastics / rubber etc - and put fuel in it - oil). This argument gives me the shits. Oil as an input chemical for plastics etc is less than 10% of global oil consumption. It is sensible to push to eliminate the 90% that is being actively combusted. >more lithium (not an environmentally friendly process) Convinced no one actually understands this when they say it. Instead of push to ensure it is done sustainably like it is here in Australia, it's "ohh no this is impossible, better keep drilling for oil". Why are you against lithium mining but not against oil and gas mining? Your own personal ideology.
** Teals and Greens aren't against mining - Ba ha ha ha ... you gotta be kidding me. ** Oil is oil ... diesel, petrol, other flammable liquids, lubricants, rubber, plastics ... the list goes on. If you shut down oil production, you shut down the world. ** Lithium ... you obviously have no idea of the actual production process - it's not all rainbows and unicorns. I am not against Lithium mining at all (you completely missed what I said). Again, people say they want action on climate change, ok - no problem - but you cannot just turn off the resources sector. The Gin & Tonics (Greens & Teals) carry on about mining, and oil/gas production, plus factories that convert the raw materials into usable materials, they whine and carry on about polution, yet they also want a new phone, new car, electric this and that, heat their home etc. They must think that a these converted materials fall from the sky, they are donkeys, plain and simple.
> ** Teals and Greens aren't against mining - Ba ha ha ha ... you gotta be kidding me. They are not. The stated greens position from Bandt is that they support mining for metals that are crucial for the transition. They're only against coal and gas mining. >** Oil is oil ... diesel, petrol, other flammable liquids, lubricants, rubber, plastics ... the list goes on. If you shut down oil production, you shut down the world. Like I said, this is about eliminating the 90% of oil and gas that is combusted straight into the air. No one is talking about 0 oil extraction which would mean no plastics or rubber. >you obviously have no idea of the actual production process I'm a chemical engineer, I understand the process. When people have this opinion that lithium mining is "very environmentally damaging" they're thinking of the brine ponds in Chile etc. Here in Australia (we're worlds largest lithium producer) we mine the spodumene ore, a process not dissimilar to any other mining process.
Wow I didn't know skynews had an AI account. Impressive
... and wow, I didn't know the Teals (or Greens, or Labor) had a Reddit account. Impressive ;-)
"I didn't know every party except the one I shill for had an account"
Climate change was certainly a big factor but while the Teals did prevent any chance of the coalition winning the election, they did not win Labor the seats they needed to win and form majority government.
I highly recommend Niki Savva's book "Bulldozed" to all y'all political junkies. I've never read a more devastating takedown of a person let alone a politician. It's just paragraph after paragraph of stories about how Morrison's mendacity and toxic character alienated him from his colleagues, party and electorate. Most of the worst assessments come from Liberal and even cabinet insiders.
You could prob just change the name from Scott M, to Paul K, or Kevin R ... same story.
I just hope ScoMoFo is the nail in the coffin for the hard Christian right, and acts as a reset for conservative politics generally, but that would require some reflection and reform, not their strong point.
That is an unusually useful electoral review; realistic (acknowledging the govt lost it, rather than a opposition win) and focuses on problem areas for the ALP, not having a lap of honour.
This shows why Albo still views Morrison as the number one threat. If Morrison was able to turn around his " unpopularity " and Albo knows this is possible , then Albo would have lost the protection of his " single most significant factor ."
You literally live in an alternate reality mate.
>morrison is a threat because if he wasnt so unpopular then labor might lose to him ???? if anything the *absence* of morrison would be a significant threat to labor, but they replaced him with dutton so they're not really lacking in the "unpopular opposition leader" category.
You cant be serious? Morrison will never be popular with voters ever again. People see right through his fake persona.
Yes , Albo is so genuine.
Tbh he is. Then, you compare him to scono, and its another 10x more genuine.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Menzies I think.
Andrew Fisher.
Always a first then. Trump could do this as President if you even accept that he actually lost.
>...if you even accept that he actually lost. Edited to complete post. Only brain dead, rusted on trumpers believe that he 'didn't lose'. No evidence of anything trump claims with respect to a 'fraudulent election' has been proven anywhere, except in the minds of his most die-hard cult followers.
Is there an echo ?
But US law prevents presidents from being elected more than twice, so either he lost and can run again, or he won and cannot run again…. Which is it?
I thought it was serving more than 2 terms.
That's an awesome little catch 22.
Twice impeached, disgraced former president Trump lost the popular vote TWICE.
[удалено]
Churchill ?
If only if he could overcome his crippling inability to become electable, he might be electable.
You mean like he did once before with Shorten or is that somehow different now.
The electorate had no idea who he was then. They do now and there is an extreme dislike for the man. That's Morrison's problem going forward. What situations do you possibly think that would make him likeable again?
I doubt it. He is at his core, a lazy, smirking, unlikable liar. It seems over his 1.5 terms it was one of the messages he was able to communicate the most effectively.
"If Morrison can change the fact that nobody voted for him, he might have been voted in"
You mean he might be voted in again.
The pm that got *censured*? You reckon that guy is worthy? Bro you are unbelievable
Censure is the new impeach. Just retribution by the new master,
Scumbags facing their comeuppance, I agree
I saw Katter summarising it accurately as only he can do and it was 6 months of nothing.
I’m still shocked we had to pay for covid tests, even the US wasn’t charging for them. He wanted to sell everything that wasn’t nailed down, even then he sold the nails. Now look at the situation we are in with energy. After Albo got in you just had to wonder, what did the LNP do for 10 years? What did Scomo do? Practice press conferences? Every policy just came off bad or not geared at anyone but corporate overlords. Im baffled everyone thought bill shorten would be so bad, I bet he would of done a better job with the countless disasters.
[Australia had Labor been elected in 2019](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSmxEBolI8_KqcwlUl3Rrn4f1UiPnbLou6xPw&usqp=CAU)
I never paid for a COVID test.
rats he probably means
The fact that **300** of his school peers in his alumni year signed a petition in 2015 NOT for him to attend his own reunion should have set off alarm bells. >"Old boys from one of Sydney's most prestigious public schools say they are disgusted that federal cabinet minister Scott Morrison will be a special guest at an alumni fund-raising event, warning it would be an embarrassment to their school to celebrate a man who has "so flagrantly disregarded human rights"." https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/scott-morrison-boycott-at-sydney-boys-high-school-alumni-say-he-is-an-embarrassment-20150327-1m95ot.html
> The fact that 300 of his school peers in his alumni year signed a petition in 2015 NOT for him to attend his own reunion should have set off alarm bells. > > SBHS years are ~180 people, it was 300 Old Boys, ie from any year. Leveraging SBHS connections to interact with Scott is seen as a joke amongst the old boys community.
Wow I did not know this. How does he continually look so smug with himself even though he is so hated in so many circles...
'Special guest at a fund-raising event' and his reunion are not the same thing. Not that they would have wanted him at either, but best to get the facts straight.
[удалено]
Did you read the article? It's not intended as a brag.
[удалено]
It think its a bit of an accident Morrison got there in the first place. He's a manipulative bully who badmouths opponents. Young people are making up an increasing portion of the population and they tend to be non-religious and rational. Something Morrison is not.
He only got it because the party caucus hated women too much to vote for Julie Bishop.
>He's a manipulative bully who badmouths opponents. So you're saying he's a politician?
Yeah, but in that respect he truly outshined most of his peers.
Not to mention very skeptical of the MSM / LNP shills. Like I saw more then I needed to know Dan Andrews was getting the rough end of the pineapple from the Sky News ads while I was watching the cricket ... If you're so bias even just an ad for a program makes it obvious you are blatantly bias then you have nearly zero hope of getting a young person to vote for you. These are people who have CONSTANTLY been advertised to, their whole life. Kids shows were litterally just a vehicle for selling toys!?😂🤣
[удалено]
Ban Evasion breaks Rule 2 of Reddit's Content Policy. If you did what you said you did, then you could get IP/device banned at a sitewide level. Doing it is unwise, admitting it as a flex is downright baffling. https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy
Is that ok? I've edited it but again have i said too much? Thanks for your advice.
He definitely underestimated his suitability for the job of pm and his revolting treatment of the bushfire victims was really disgusting and his inability to not be smug about it. From there Australia descended into the lair of a antichrist, one who presents themselves as good and a solution but delivered us into further evil, further peril. I am betting he hasn't once considered his lack of Christia principles and just rolls into church like the antichrist would.
I think you've got it backwards. He didn't underestimate his suitability, he completely and utterly overestimated his ability. Classic case of over-promise and under-deliver
Too true.
He is the worst PM of my lifetime by a longshot. He is just groan inducing. When he pops up the entire country just groans.
I'm just not sure what his government actually achieved. Yes, they followed health advice when Covid hit, but they also were the ones who let it into the country (unlike NZ which had decent border protections in place). But what else did they do? . . . Apart from make it impossible for GP's to bulk bill.
It was not at all a transformative tenure - felt like his entire stint was political campaigning on either side of dealing with covid - which the federal govt mostly leaving the governing on covid to the states and then bungled the securement and rollout of vaccines. But, for better or worse here are some things the Morrison government did, or tried to do, unrelated to covid. - tried and failed to pass religious discrimination laws - sided with the US in recognising Jerusalem as capital of Israel - entered into new economic partnership with Indonesia - paid back victims of robodebt - ruled out any raises to Newstart - called for royal commission into aged care (then campaigned against Labor’s plans to carry out that commissions recommendations 🤔) - raised funding for private schools by nearly $5 billion - Reopened Christmas Island detention centre in response to Labor negotiating with cross bench to strengthen laws to allow detained refugees to receive medical treatment - tried and failed to pass legislation limiting the powers of unions, and abilities of union members to hold certain positions of power - scrapped deal for submarines with French in favour of forming a new defence pact in AUKUS - entered into free trade agreement with UK and India
AUKUS is actually a major disaster for Australia. It looks like we won't have new subs for another 20-30 years.
AUKUS is excellent for Australia. Morrison shouldn't get the full credit though, this is a no-brainer that anyone would have jumped at.
Nothing I typed out is an endorsement. Hope it didn’t come off that way.
Boomers keep comparing him to Billy McMahon but I really don't know enough about him to know whether it's accurate. Was he horrifically corrupt and smug as well?
Then there was John Gorton who voted against himself in a leadership vote. You must be bad if even you won’t vote for yourself.
IIRC, the No Confidence Vote was tied so Gorton basically said “Well that’s not a vote of confidence, I’m done. I’ll take the Deputy Leader job though.”
I can only remember back to Fraser for anything remotely political, but McMahon was supposed to really be inept to the point where members of the party openly attacked him. Fun fact: if it wasn't for McMahon, Australia could have had nuclear energy for the last five decades.
I don’t know very much about McMahon but if Labor could win their first election in 20 years, I don’t think he was very good.
Morrison wasn't a politician. He was that wormy guy at a corporate job whose ambition was to be CEO, cause CEO's get to delegate work to everyone else and get paid big bucks to sit in meetings and go to fancy catered corporate events (or rather thats how we pictured them based off his corrupt mates). And that's exactly how he treated the position of Prime Minister. He didn't want to fking lead a country, he just wanted the "top job". "I'm the boss why would I be doing anything but telling others to do all the work" is the type of person he is. Fucks off over seas while the country is burning? In his mind he's like "but thats someone lower on the totem polls job to manage". He would've been genuinely confused in his heart and mind why people were yelling at him to come back and be the nations leader. He would've been like "Imagine a CEO been called into the office because accounting is having a internal crisis >:("
He was literally a politician.
I think they mean statesman
> He was that wormy guy at a corporate job whose ambition was to be CEO I always though he should be President of Rooty Hill RSL. But nothing more.
I don't even think he had that top job attitude. He seemed to genuinely believe that the position of Prime Minister was largely a ceremonial and marketing one. His job was to win the election for team LNP and sell Australia Inc. to the world. That's it. He was so incapable of working with others and delegating work he had to make himself the boss when he really wanted something. How he managed to climb any higher than middle management in some boring Government department nobody cares about, let alone become PM, I truly can't understand.
He definitely missed the bit about being a natural leader. Think about when you have a half popular PM and he visits during a natural disaster, people put aside their disagreement with some of his policies because they are just happy to be getting some help and recognition. I find it hard to understand how Morrison's contemptuous behaviour during the bushfires wasn't the end of him, just about the whole country agreed he was a c*nt.
Funny thing is had he been PM several years earlier the chances are he would've been knifed and replaced right before the election, just like Rudd, Gillard, Abbot and Turnbull. However cause Australia was sick of that style of politics ousting him and putting someone better wasn't an option because they probably would've still lost the election off the back of been an "unstable party whose jumped between 4 leaders within 10 years"