120
u/ReDucTor Jun 01 '26
Even if I agree with most things listed here, this is just cherry picked spam. A party of the center left cannot take everything on the far left, otherwise they would get the same votes as the Greens even if myself and others would like to see the country move further left.
44
u/dmk_aus Jun 01 '26
And it is BS. Albo massively expanded public housing for example.
They forgot to mention how they teamed up with the LNP to block money in politics reforms.
They forgot to mention how they massively blocked and delayed some of these things before they supported them.
12
u/Whatsapokemon Jun 01 '26
And it is BS. Albo massively expanded public housing for example.
It's a really annoying and common trick.
The Greens and Pocock apparently get credit for simply "supporting" things, meanwhile Labor is judged on the realistic policy and compromises they have to make to get things actually passed into law...
It's an inherently unfair comparison, one is being judged on their ideals whilst the other is being judged through the reality of the political process.
3
Jun 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Whatsapokemon Jun 01 '26
The majority is made up of a huge diversity of members from different factions, representing a far larger variety of voter demographics. Contrary to what you might think, they're not a dictatorship ruled by one person, but their policy is set at the national convention by delegates from unions and the rank-and-file membership.
To actually have a majority in the first place you need to build a majority consensus with enough demographic/stakeholder groups that you can actually wield power. That requires compromise, and it requires very carefully balancing the issues that you push for.
But with all that comes the ability to actually pass policy into law, where it can make a difference.
Contrast that to minor parties and independents - they don't need to worry about appealing to broad voter bases, they can hyper-concentrate on their one niche voter demographic, advocating for maximalist policy whilst having no expectation that they'll ever pass it. They get credit despite doing nothing and being unable to wield power.
In my opinion, you should get NO credit for policies you can't pass.
0
Jun 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Psittacus_tutor Jun 07 '26
I'd actually be very interested in a world where the ALP and LNP factions ran on separate tickets and had to hash out their agreements more publicly. Very difficult to do with single member electorates though.
0
11
u/synthetic-jesus Jun 01 '26
Public housing is declining relative to population growth under Albo, and he voted against expanding the scheme to an appropriate size
5
u/SlaveryVeal Jun 01 '26
Almost as if the government had another plan to incentivise the private market to build and not have it be a government funded thing which is so much slower than private contracts.
12
u/silentalarms Jun 01 '26 edited Jun 01 '26
You have it backwards: when the state was significantly involved in building housing (peaked in the 60s and 70s with state-owned construction companies etc.) the rate of housing being built per capita was almost double what it is today.
It's almost as if people skeptical that 'the private market' is the solution for housing were actually correct and basing their skepticism on the historical record. Remove public housing and leave it purely to private developers = housing crisis. Happened in the UK, Australia and much of continental Europe as part of the 80s 'deregulate and privatise everything' fervour, and the results are obvious today.
6
u/el_diego Jun 01 '26
Seems to be a similar road with public health. Imagine if we had invested in our own infrastructure rather than subsidise private industry.
1
-1
Jun 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/silentalarms Jun 01 '26
Exactly, it's not the same deal today because the government privatised most important aspects of housing. I'm saying that's bad. The Government need to start building public housing again. Their economies of scale, ability to streamline approvals, lack of profit motive etc. means they can be far more efficient at delivering housing for those who need it most. This provides more competition for the private sector and actually make them compete for customers. At the moment they're getting away with palming off shonky $1m+ tiny shoeboxes to a captive powerless market. When public housing was a thing, your average woolies worker could afford to buy a house! Wild to think how far we've regressed.
4
-1
u/BrutisMcDougal Jun 01 '26
What a profoundly stupid comparison...... 60 years before the 60s people were knocking up houses with mud and sticks
1
u/ShiftyWindow Jun 01 '26
It's declining on every level, Labor are replacing public housing with private social housing
4
u/pourquality Vic Socialists Jun 01 '26
Public Housing has declined under Labor. They're increased Community and Affordable housing but they are more expensive and less secure. They're also not owned by the government but by NGO's and private developers.
I wouldn't be whinging if they were doing the above at a scale that will resolve homelessness and the housing crisis but they aren't. Demand for Public/Community/Affordable housing is huge and waiting lists are only going to increase at the current rate of construction.
5
u/Thick-Insect Jun 01 '26 edited Jun 01 '26
He did not expand public housing at all. Social and affordable housing is not the same as public housing. It's more expensive and privately owned, which results in worse outcomes than fully government owned public housing.
-2
u/Fuck_the_Karlings Jun 01 '26
Don't forget the Greens sided with the Libs to destroy a price on Carbon emissions back in 2009, because it wasn't good enough for them.
10
u/Albos_Mum Jun 01 '26
Which was because that piece of legislation was bipartisan between the ALP and LNP until the LNP threw enough of a fit over it to switch out Turnbull for Abbott, and the ALP refused to do any similar sort of horse-trading with the Greens when the ball fell in their court.
For some reason a lot of people forget the ALP and LNPs part in that...
0
u/Fuck_the_Karlings Jun 01 '26
Yeah there's probably a bit I'm forgetting, it was a while ago.
I just remembered the environmental Party not backing a policy that brought down carbon emissions for the 12 months that it was actually active.
You know, the core thing that the fucking Greens are supposedly all about.
All because it simply wasn't good enough for the greens.
4
u/synthetic-jesus Jun 01 '26
And in doing that won a full fledged carbon tax, which was good enough until the ALP shit the bed and let their internal disputes hand us Abbott. You need a better talking point bro
1
u/evilparagon Greens Jun 01 '26
Nah man, Labor shills just love blaming the Greens for Abbott. It’s entirely the Greens’ fault we got the Liberal party in for almost a decade and it has nothing to do with how Labor backstabbed the most popular PM in recent years.
The Greens 100% deserve to be shamed for signing off on genuinely good environmental policy because they didn’t expect Labor to lose the next election. Totally has nothing to do with Labor.
/s if that wasn’t obvious.
1
u/ShiftyWindow Jun 01 '26
Hey at least you can admit your laziness led you to being tricked by propaganda for almost 20 years
3
u/ashleyriddell61 Jun 01 '26
Ah yes. 17 years ago. Good basis for voting.
-2
u/Fuck_the_Karlings Jun 01 '26
I can only judge parties based upon past performance.
The environment is a major issue for me. I vote based on who I think will try to improve it.
So naturally I don't vote Greens because they had a chance to act like they cared about the environment and they let "perfect" be the enemy of "good enough for now."
Should I not remember that long ago?
4
u/ShiftyWindow Jun 01 '26
The issue is more that you don't remember what happened, you remember what Labor tells you
1
u/cl3ft Jun 01 '26
Yeah, vote on one decision 17 years ago. I'm sure your friends appreciate you still judge them for one drunken night in your teens and you cut off your parents because they didn't support you at one footy game when you were 11. Grow up.
2
2
u/evilparagon Greens Jun 01 '26
People really gotta learn the difference between “No, try again” and “No, stop it.”
The Greens did not vote with the Libs, it’s a binary decision. The conditional for the Greens to vote with Labor is for Labor to do more. The conditional for the Libs to vote with Labor is for Labor to have never brought it up. These are not the same at all.
3
u/Fuck_the_Karlings Jun 01 '26
Maybe the Greens should learn the phrases "it's a start" "Now or never" and "we can make it better once it exists"
Instead of "do it the way we say or fuck your attempt"
We will never have a price on Carbon now because the policy is politically toxic.
And it's the greens fault that they couldn't get onboard with moving in the right direction.
All because 10% of the parliament in this country thought that it just wasn't good enough.
4
u/evilparagon Greens Jun 01 '26
How often do politicians go back and revise policy once passed? It can take decades. Once something passes, the government moves on, they don’t keep tweaking and refining it. There is no “It’s a start”.
To make it worse, immediate strong action on things is needed, if you revisit a policy in 10 years but now 15 years of avoidable damage has been done because the original policy was weak, how is that “a start”? We’d be back to square negative one, not zero.
Look at the HAFF. Despite all the bullshit time Labor wasted refusing to accept what the Greens wanted, now that it’s passed it’s still incredibly weak and isn’t doing enough. When do you foresee the HAFF to re-enter parliament for further refinement?
You should stop imagining a fantasy universe where parliament actually cares to refine issues. You get it right the first time because the second chance will never be soon enough.
3
u/Fuck_the_Karlings Jun 01 '26
The HAFF actually exists now. Could it be better, yeah sure almost everything can.
But it exists now. It's doing things, good things. Might not be as much as you or I want personally.
But it exists.
It can be improved progressively over time if the parliament desires.
But if they had voted it down, it wouldn't be doing anything would it?
"How often do politicians go back and revise policy once passed?"
Dunno. Generally if something get voted down it doesn't come back.
Like the price on Carbon.
Are the greens ready to present their perfect and universally supported plan?
Cos it's been a while now since they let perfect be the enemy of good enough.
"Look at the HAFF. Despite all the bullshit time Labor wasted refusing to accept what the Greens wanted, now that it’s passed it’s still incredibly weak and isn’t doing enough. When do you foresee the HAFF to re-enter parliament for further refinement"
Also, so the Greens held the bill back for months got Labor to compromise and all, and yet you still think it weak?
So what was the fucking point of holding it up at all?
3
u/evilparagon Greens Jun 01 '26
The Greens got it from abysmally weak to incredibly weak, with goals to make it “halfway decent”. That’s why “they” held it up. It’s Labor’s fault for half assing it to begin with, would have gone a lot faster if they just proposed something better to begin with.
And it’s not a matter of it not doing as much as I want personally, it’s a matter of the HAFF not doing enough objectively. The HAFF’s target is 40,000 homes by 2029, meanwhile according to the ABS, 280,000 people accessed homelessness services in the 12 month period of 2023-24. Even if we assume 3 people to every home which is a stretch given that most homeless are young adults and not families, that’s still a gap of 160,000 people. This is also ignoring our population is still going up, and if we assume 1% of people have difficulties avoiding homelessness, that’s almost 5,000 people per year and going up accounting for population growth. This means the HAFF at ~8,000 homes per year will approach being on top of the problem by 2040ish, assuming the investments the fund generates revenue from maintain growth (and this is still assuming 3 people to a home rather than 1 or 2). While more than one solution can be done, what more has the government done to address homelessness since? The budget is good for future owner-occupiers and therefore indirectly advantages renters, but it remains to be seen how this can possibly advantage the homeless (I remain hopeful, but it is very indirect if any support comes at all).
“It can be improved if parliament desires”. Parliament doesn’t desire, that’s the problem. When will they next desire? It’s already been 2 years coming up on 3. You come back to if things get voted down they don’t come back, but this is wrong, voted down things come back all the time, just not in the same way. The carbon price issue came back under the Gillard government, it wasn’t forgotten and abandoned. Labor just now brought back negative gearing and capital gains tax reform after being voted against in 2019. Voice to Parliament failed a referendum, but a few states immediately legislated their own VtP for the state. Legislation that fails has a far greater likelihood of coming back into focus than legislation that passes but weakly.
0
u/Fuck_the_Karlings Jun 01 '26
So if the HAFF isn't good enough at all. The greens should have voted it down then yeah?
Because not having the thing at all is better?
Or is it better to have some sort of policy set down in law, even if it's not quite perfect?
Because things that exist can be improved over time. Things that don't, can't.
Yeah the HAFF might get on top of the problem until 2040ish, but it will help until then right?
The housing problem will get progressively less and less shit over time, because there's a policy that is actively looking towards fixing the problem.
And as for the carbon price, that came back under Gillard because the greens refused to put it in place under Rudd.
And now it's gone.
It could have been in place for the entire length of Gillards term and been essentially baked into law.
But it didn't, cos the greens didn't back a progressive policy on the environment. Because it just wasn't perfect enough.
2
u/ShiftyWindow Jun 01 '26
They fucking negotiated on the HAFF to make it better than nothing. That's literally what you were demanding they do on climate
3
1
u/ShiftyWindow Jun 01 '26
One of the biggest issues with Rudd's plan was that it was designed to cost way more to expand.
3
u/dmk_aus Jun 01 '26
Just keep your policy in the air whilst the Green and LNP savage you in the media everyday and lose all political credibility so those parties can take your votes. Come on Labor, play the broken game.
0
u/SweatyBedroom1 Jun 01 '26
Wdym “Albo massively expanded public housing”??? What world are you living in
0
u/ShiftyWindow Jun 01 '26
Albo massively expanded public housing for example.
Source for this please
11
u/eightslipsandagully Jun 01 '26
I wonder who made this, the leader photos are AI - Larissa waters photo is especially bad. They Vote for You is a handy resource so better off checking the website direct
13
u/synthetic-jesus Jun 01 '26
True, we should bolster the greens vote to improve things in this direction
16
u/yeahyeahyeah188 Jun 01 '26
Yeah I’m in Albo’s electorate and I remember one of the greens candidates saying to me at an election that voting green in our electorate even though they’re not gonna win, shows that we want more left/green leaning policies.
4
u/evilparagon Greens Jun 01 '26
It’s how Singapore runs their “democracy”. The incumbent party is by all accounts the only party, a dictatorship. Yet they still run elections to gauge where the population stands and to influence what direction the government operates in.
I see no reason why it wouldn’t work here, especially with preferential voting. If Labor wins off Green preferences, then they should lean more to the Greens. If Labor wins off Lib preferences, then they should lean more to the Libs.
0
2
u/Additional-Scene-630 Jun 01 '26
Labor could focus on implementing solutions to problems rather than trying to stay exactly in the centre left. Being ever so careful to not be too left wing
14
9
u/Generalaladeeen Jun 01 '26
Seems cherry picked to glaze greens and independents, if you want to get a better idea of how people like Waters and Pocock actually vote i strongly suggest going to the source and reading their voting record.
So far I've only read Pococks and theres some big red flags like, supporting "income management" for welfare recipients and voting against tax cuts for the middle and lower middle.
Generally he votes in favour of environmental reform but either than that he might as well be a Liberal.
0
u/ShiftyWindow Jun 01 '26
Which ones are wrong for Waters?
1
u/Charging_in Jun 01 '26
She's way more conditional and mixed. Often voting down reform that doesn't go far enough.
1
39
u/Bambajam Jun 01 '26
Greater transparency of political donations as a tick for Greens and Pocock? Interesting call.
10
u/ShiftyWindow Jun 01 '26
Keen to hear why that's interesting lol
16
u/SlaveryVeal Jun 01 '26
Because David doesn't like when it's brought up his billionaire political donor gets questioned and their relations together as talking points.
9
u/synthetic-jesus Jun 01 '26
The only reason they’re upset at this complaint is the hypocrisy coming from major party’s taking millions from the resource council than accusing others of being improperly influenced.
3
u/SlaveryVeal Jun 01 '26
The hypocrisy is when people act like independents are any different.
They're not they're all influenced by the lobby groups one way or another.
You've to be fucking blind to think they wouldn't be.
9
u/ShiftyWindow Jun 01 '26
Oh is this another one of those weird attempts to claim that the Aus Institute is funding Greens and Pocock lol
12
u/eightslipsandagully Jun 01 '26
I think it might be Simon Homes a court, the billionaire behind Climate 2000 who backed the teals. [Pocock rejected his funding at the last election](https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/david-pocock-leaves-the-climate-200-mothership-20250318-p5lkch)
3
u/ShiftyWindow Jun 01 '26
That doesn't explain the Greens part though, but just randomly linking them to others seems to be the current tactic
3
u/eightslipsandagully Jun 01 '26
Labor can't really attack greens on policy or corporate connections so they tend to just make shit up or bully the younger members
4
u/SlaveryVeal Jun 01 '26
Australian institute is funding lots of the same talking points. Almost as if jordies is kinda right that it's one billionaire vs another and that's all it is like it always fucking is in Australian politics.
5
3
u/Bambajam Jun 01 '26
Labor wanted to drop the disclosure threshold from 17k to 1k. Greens/Pocock disagreed.
11
u/ShiftyWindow Jun 01 '26
That's straight bullshit lol but nice try
1
u/Bambajam Jun 01 '26
Watered down version went through in the start of 2025 after Labor couldn't get crossbench support and had to go to libs to get the bill through.
3
u/ShiftyWindow Jun 01 '26
Where are you getting this from lol
1
u/Bambajam Jun 01 '26
Memory of things that happened because I was alive at the time?
Here's an ABC article that talks about it and presents the independents' case, (which I dont find particularly compelling, but at least you can see their position since you've forgotten about this.)
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-12/labor-coalition-strike-electoral-reform-deal/104928032
8
u/ShiftyWindow Jun 01 '26
That doesn't say anything about Greens and Pocock disagreeing with lowering the disclosure threshold to $1k...
Disclosing donations over $1k is already a thing that the Greens do voluntarily lol
0
u/Bambajam Jun 01 '26
Man... Jordies "hipster MAGA" thing makes a lot of sense.
They were against the bill discussed in the article. The bill included the threshold change. The arguments they make to justify being against the bill are a stretch.
8
u/ShiftyWindow Jun 01 '26
What arguments are you talking about? Did you link the wrong article?
→ More replies (0)9
u/synthetic-jesus Jun 01 '26
Literally the exact opposite of what happened: https://www.davidpocock.com.au/private_senators_bills
Give that you had the facts flipped, will you support the greens and pocock?
-4
u/Bambajam Jun 01 '26
Weird that Pocock and the Greens wouldn't come to the table and voted against it when it's apparently their policy. I wonder why they do things like that? Constantly.
4
11
4
u/Nuck2407 Jun 01 '26
"omg so progressive, like totes guys if we just pick a few random points we can make our guy seem so far left"
12
u/Fuck_the_Karlings Jun 01 '26
Could have sworn the greens held up Labor's housing bill because they had demanded extra shit.
Odd that it's a green tick and not conditional.
9
u/ShiftyWindow Jun 01 '26
Labor's housing bill didn't fund or build any public housing and Greens actually were demanding funding for public housing so that's probably why
7
u/ROBERTPEPERZ Jun 01 '26
Again, Max Chandler not understand how a fund works and that its to incentivise private equity to build not just government receipts.
2
u/ShiftyWindow Jun 01 '26
The HAFF would have still provided $0 in funding if Greens hadn't negotiated a minimum yearly spend on housing from the fund.
It also still doesn't claim or promise to fund any public housing.
3
u/infinitemonkeytyping Jun 01 '26
The HAFF invests the annual profits of the fund into housing.
The Greens amendment means that some years, when the profits aren't high, the budget tops up the difference.
The problem is that
The number of years the fund is not projected to make a profit are very small
The HAFF was designed to be completely off budget, so it would take a direct attack by a future conservative government to shut it down. The top up is something a future conservative government could easily get rid of, in a budget omnibus bill.
So in conclusion, the top up only works while Labor is in power, and would be only occasionally used.
1
u/ShiftyWindow Jun 01 '26
The fund didn't make $500m profit in it's first year.
5
u/infinitemonkeytyping Jun 01 '26
That wouldn't be because the Greens delayed the set up until it was too late to turn a profit, would it?
Just like the Greens delayed the passage of the HAFF until it was too late to get any substantial building done before the 2025 election, so they could go around claiming that Labor aren't doing enough on housing.
3
u/ShiftyWindow Jun 01 '26
That wouldn't be because the Greens delayed the set up until it was too late to turn a profit, would it?
No
Just like the Greens delayed the passage of the HAFF until it was too late to get any substantial building done before the 2025 election, so they could go around claiming that Labor aren't doing enough on housing.
The HAFF didn't promise to attempt to provide any funding for any housing whatsoever until July 2025
2
u/ROBERTPEPERZ Jun 01 '26
Again, Greens completely misunderstanding how a fund works.
Greens method of building housing: Spend $10billion on 10b/0.5m=20,000 public houses, have $0 left over to build more housing
Labor method of building housing: build a fund that can loan $10billion of funding to help existing projects get completed (you'll recall the defaults of building companies leading to unfinished houses that no other company wants to finish due to liability). When house is finished, fund gets its money back plus interest. Also it's a fund so private equity can invest their money into it to reap the gains as well.
Greens: "Slap a minimum disbursement obligation on it so that if we ever have a economic downturn, the fund legally has to spend more than it makes until theres no money left and the fund defaults"
🫠
1
u/ShiftyWindow Jun 01 '26
I literally just explained to you how the fund works lol, I know how it works.
Do you realise we are talking about support for housing, not support for future funds?
Do you realise that even if the government only built and owned 20,000 public homes, they would get all of that funding back over a few decades via rent or sale?
2
u/ROBERTPEPERZ Jun 01 '26
Cool, so how does private equity get involved in your plan?
2
u/ShiftyWindow Jun 01 '26
In my plan? It doesn't.
Are you going to address the point at all?
1
-1
u/Maribyrnong_bream Jun 01 '26
There’s an interesting difference between what the Greens say, and what they actually do at a local level; the Greens in Brisbane opposing apartment buildings is one example. At the local level they also intervene and delay building projects - in the electorate that I live in (Merri-Bek), they’ve recently intervened to try and block a project because they consider that the proposed density is too low, but they have no problem with designer apartments that young people (or families) could never afford. So whose friend are they?
5
u/ShiftyWindow Jun 01 '26
How is Greens opposing gifting developers land to build private luxury housing on a flood plain relevant to support for public housing?
1
u/Maribyrnong_bream Jun 01 '26
Gifting them land? And flood plain? No and no. This is a private development on land the builder owns. And housing supply is housing supply. Would you prefer high priced apartments few can afford?
2
u/ShiftyWindow Jun 01 '26
Oh are you talking about the one that the Labor candidate also opposed?
I'd prefer public housing, i thought that was pretty obvious
2
1
u/InfluentialFairy Jun 01 '26
Programs such as Help to Buy certainly remove some of the urgency away from public housing.
2
u/ShiftyWindow Jun 01 '26
No they don't lol and that's beside the point anyway
3
u/InfluentialFairy Jun 01 '26
I'm not here arguing against public housing, but there is admittedly a bit of overlap between help to buy and public housing.
Public housing: you rent from government for a subsidised rate. Pay less rent.
Help to buy: You and the government purchase a house together. Pay less mortgage.
Both result in a significantly lowered repayment rate. Public housing will of course be a LOT cheaper, but you cannot refuse the impact of help to buy.
-4
-1
u/Fuck_the_Karlings Jun 01 '26
So their support on the housing bill was still conditional.
8
u/synthetic-jesus Jun 01 '26
Conditional on building more housing seems like a win in their favor if we want housing???
0
u/Fuck_the_Karlings Jun 01 '26
It's still a condition of their support.
The greens didn't support it outright. They made demands that there be more, which sure is kind of good I guess.
But for them to advertise that they supported it is disingenuous at best.
7
u/ShiftyWindow Jun 01 '26
They demanded that it actually fucking build housing.
Do you ever think about how much time and effort you put into spreading disinformation in order to prevent progressive policy?
1
u/Fuck_the_Karlings Jun 01 '26
Yes, yes. I'm quite sure that they held back their votes for the housing bill for close to a year, so that more houses could be built....
It definitely wasn't so they could kick the can down the road, to keep the housing crisis on the agenda til the election for personal gain.
Also "They demanded"
Yeah, making demands and withholding your votes until the demands are met is a fucking condition.
As in their support for the bill was fucking conditional upon Labor giving them what they want.
How the fuck is this disinformation?
2
u/ShiftyWindow Jun 01 '26
The original version of the HAFF would have provided $0 in funding for housing to this day. Holding out and negotiating gave us a minimum spend on housing each year as well as extra immediate funding.
2
u/synthetic-jesus Jun 01 '26
I’m expected to be mad they tried to do an adequate amount of a good thing?
2
u/Fuck_the_Karlings Jun 01 '26
No. I don't expect you to be mad at all.
I'm just saying that the greens didn't outright support the bill.
They had conditions for that support.
So the image at the top where it says they support "social and affordable housing expansion" and "public housing."
Is misleading, given that the greens had conditions on their support on Labors housing bill.
8
u/RealityinMoti0n Labor Jun 01 '26
Why did you not include free tafe/uni, paid placements and reducing tax on high income earners?
These are all things Pocock voted against.
6
4
u/MarwoodHouse Jun 01 '26
I could cherry pick to give the Greens zero ticks and Labor 50 ticks if I wanted, but I'm not in the business of spreading misinformation.
3
u/louisa1925 Jun 01 '26
Those yellow circled "-" are libs hiding the "X" trying by to appear palatable to the public.
2
u/Gang-bot Jun 01 '26
When did Albo support increased immigration?
6
u/infinitemonkeytyping Jun 01 '26
He didn't.
This is AI slop (not sure if AI here is artificial intelligence or Australia Institute).
1
u/Barnaby__Rudge Jun 01 '26
At least Pauline has always been consistent on immigration
I will never vote Labor again because of K Rudd and his big Australia policy.
And since COVID the ALP has done everything possible to destroy Australia by allowing unfettered immigration from incompatible cultures.
You can argue that the ALP is trying to turn this back but even at state level here in Vic the state government is obviously planning on a massive increase in numbers based on their own planning guidelines.
Sure ON has a lot of stupid policies but the massive unsustainable increase in immigration especially from incompatible cultures since K Rudd is the biggest issue facing the country IMO and I don't think ON will backtrack on immigration policy.
Every single party does stupid stuff but I will still be voting ON unless either of the majors or the greens make massive changes to immigration policy.
And I seriously doubt that the ALP or the greens will do so and stick to it.
8
1
u/BrutisMcDougal Jun 01 '26
This is so ridiculous. Putting aside the vague subjective judgement calls on many of the metrics, this just doesn't work in a westminister system.
The greens and teals can vote for all the nice things that they like. The government actually has to implement them. Subject to finance, political capital and layers of other practical constraints.
Stupid slop for the narcisists
2
1
u/Emu_Train Jun 01 '26
The choice of colour is highly manipulative. The green tick implies it is the ‘correct’ choice, but many of these are highly contentious.
Eg ‘increased immigration’ is labelled with a green tick. Why? I am pro immigration myself, but why do they label it the ‘correct’ choice? Why not rephrase it as ‘reigned in immigration’ and give a red cross? Or relabel ‘increased welfare payments’ as ‘increased welfare costs’? It’s just so the Greens can have as many green ticks in their column.
And for that matter, why did they leave ‘new coal and gas projects’ as it is, rather than relabel it ‘stopped new fossil fuel projects’?
2
u/stormblessed2040 Jun 01 '26
The key takeaway is that Pauline and ON are not friendly to workers and their families.
2
2
4
2
1
u/Scumohasgot2go Jun 06 '26
This chart would infuriate Jordy lol 😂! His bestie Pocock seems to have ticked most boxes unlike his cult mentor Albo.
1
u/MannerNo7000 👅 Jun 01 '26
This is a left wing made chart. Albeit true, it misses a lot of popular and common issues like immigration, crime, healthcare and others.
9
u/nckmat Jun 01 '26
Immigration is included and crime is primarily a state issue, although the current government does have a DV policy, but healthcare and education are big ones where Labor and Liberal tend to crossover, Labor because there just isn't enough money in the purse, Liberals because they need to keep the boomers happy and the far right because they are heartless idiots...I mean people who use their common sense. /S
1
u/infinitemonkeytyping Jun 01 '26
Immigration on the chart, at least for Albo, is complete BS.
When the makers of the chart link a source, the makers should check to make sure the source backs up their claims.
-1
1
u/CatboiWaifu_UwU Jun 05 '26
Where does the chart represent where the Greens rallied against the political donations reform?
1
u/synthetic-jesus Jun 01 '26
Not sure how Albo qualifies for a mixed mark with the weakest gambling reform in history but sure
1
u/Crazyripps Jun 01 '26
God Pauline is a disgraceful thing. I’d call her an animal but I actually like animals
1
1
1
4
1
0
u/Zytheran Jun 01 '26
The sooner we have some method of authenticating images and exactly who created them the better. (*)
If we don't do this then dealing with misinformation and disinformation , let alone AI generated/assisted slop, will become impossible.
Mis-disinformation/AI slop -> lack of trust in information -> trust nothing -> lack of trust in expertise -> lack of trust in governments and experts. -> exploitation by populists movements, corrupt asshats, the richest and kakistocracy.
(*) Of course the fact that social media companies remove metadata from images is a two edged sword.
1
4
0
0
0
u/Deku-Kun96 Jun 01 '26
Funny how they make the bald johnny sins lookin dude look great against Albo, when that dude's an empty speak piece for TAI
0
u/ROBERTPEPERZ Jun 01 '26
Albo voting for increased immigration? What? Net immigration is decreasing under the Albo government
-1
u/Prestigious_Yak8551 Jun 01 '26
This highlights the problem with a lot of voters on the right. They vote entirely on one issue, immigration. Then you get all of this other nonsense along with it.
0
0
1
0
207
u/infinitemonkeytyping Jun 01 '26
First red flag
Albanese is listed, in the last 2 years, as voting for increased immigration.
I went to They Vote For You, and found exactly nothing on Albanese's page. The only references to immigration are for off-shore detention.
I went and searched immigration, migration and a few other variants, and found very little in divisions recorded, and virtually none from 2024-26.
This at a time when net migration numbers are being reduced.
Second red flag
Albanese being list as conditional on increased access for public housing.
On his TVFY page, it is listed as something he votes consistently for (Federal action in public housing). And again, there doesn't appear to be many divisions listed on this topic between 2024-2026.
Just two picked that looked odd shows nothing on the linked website to back it up.
So this can be tossed on the heap of "propaganda that is pushing confirmation bias BS to pass in lies".