Hi, https://www.theguardian.com/news/da...he-coalition-won-the-2019-australian-election So as it turns out wealthy electorates mainly had swings to the ALP while working class electorates swung toward the Coalition. Is this to be unexpected? Labor ran a hard campaign on getting their "fair share" from the "top end of town" and presumably giving it to social services. Why has this message resonated with rich electorates and fallen on deaf ears in poor electorates? Even more surprising, YOUNG electorates swung Coalition while older electorates swung Labor. This is the opposite of what I'd expect. ____________________ All over the West it seems like the traditionally left wing working claas is moving right, while the left focusses on a coalition of academics, unemployed people and minorities. Thoughts?
Because people didn't vote on policies, the wealthy voted on policies but the rest of Australia voted on conservative issues.. If you are wealthy migrants fill your rental homes, push wages down... you wouldn't want migration slowed. The "fair share' Labor was going to take from the top end was minute over the span of ten years... these people can afford it.
I think if you want to examine these points of reference on why these people voted the way they did. Take Abbott’s seat, many could very well put the point the rich electorate decided climate change was the cause of change from Coalition. Does that mean the ALP stood above since Getup spent HUGE money to promote everybody against Abbott??? No, as an independent who claims their major focus is climate change, nothing will come from. However, the candidate stated they would support Coalition governance over ALP and several other things and since the ALP would possibly win, the electorate could vote to show support for these policies while clearly it would not detrimentally affect them directly. OR so they believed. Political thinking is fast moving toward American criterions of left and right thinking. “All over the West it seems like the traditionally left wing working claas is moving right, while the left focusses on a coalition of academics, unemployed people and minorities.” The ALP is not left wing working class, they are social policy party. It is not Academia or employment. The ALP is about NDIS, domestic violence and other social policy. While the Coalition is about economic freedoms and over all policy. It becomes, far too general to categorise left and right when the parties are pretty much of the same with only minor differences in policy stance… I think if you corolate where the money was spent, you will see the trend of how the votes were made... Oh please, ALP immigration policy mirrored Coalition as majority of their policies. The only few differences were from taxation and welfare. But again we can debate that all you want. Fact is ALP lost even failing your belief that you voted for the best policy (which clearly majority do not accept)
I think their problem was the top end of town includes a fair slice of working professionals who are not bank CEOs, just regular hard working Australians who dedicated 7 years of their lives to studying an advanced degree. They would have more success if they targetted incomes over 5 million instead of $200,000. Nobody sees people on 200k as the problem. As a result we have this odd situation where the rich are swinging toward a party that is adverseral toward them and the poor are swinging to a party that supposedly wants nothing to do with them. I found it odd that people all over the income scale seem to be voting against their personal economic interests.
big fat eye roll for you Garry because you are wrong, Morrison cut skilled by 30 000 Labor pledges to increase skilled migration income threshold, Coalition to help small business https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04...e-skilled-migration-income-threshold/11037218
Australians are simply not doing it tough enough..... yet. Compared to most countries we live a very high quality of life. Why vote for change when you don't want anything changed.
Morrison set to announce 30,000 cut to migration https://www.sbs.com.au/news/morrison-set-to-announce-30-000-cut-to-migration There's no premise... it is or it isn't... you can't bullshit the whole thing to suit you... it's 30 000 less with Labor promising to increase
Wow, how to contrive dribble... Yes, your premise that ALP is increasing migration is simply YOUR lie. as for the Coalition reducing migration quota... Chalk and cheese. Like saying increases in 457visas is increase in migration... They have nothing to do with each other....
It's simply my lie... then why are there so many news articles about it' maybe simply you're just clueless Bill Shorten to increase refugee intake https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...-increase-refugee-intake-20181217-p50moj.html
What is the lie??? The so called increase in immigration you are claiming??? Yes it is simply a lie... maybe you think it is a lie that the Coalition wanting to decrease immigration numbers as a lie??? The fact is, this is why you show little credibility. Shorten talks about mix of immigration and intent to increase skilled aspect of the numbers while not actually addressing the overall number. BUT because it talks about increases YOU think it is increase in immigration numbers. This is how the lies of politicians catch you out, because you cannot differentiate the difference of what they are increasing. Apparently the person shown to be clueless is the person pushing their belief of increases to overall by claiming increases to criteria is demonstrate the complete… Bit like saying we increased the number of milking stalls in our dairy so we have more cows…
So you're saying the Sydney Morning Herald and the ABC lied, Bill Shorten never said he wanted to increase refugees and skilled migrants to help small business. Well it's not as if the media doesn't lie, it's just unusual that they would lie so specifically about Bill Shorten's policies... maybe you can present proof they are lying... unless you can give me some proof I have to go with what they published.
I did not read the SMH as I assume it said the same as the ABC. As it said NOTHING of increasing immigration numbers but increasing skilled migration I point out it is YOUR lie that is what they are saying. I don’t speak of the SMH but should it have said so, I would say it was a lie. I also have the hindsight that the ALP stated before the election they would support Morrison’s stance on migration numbers. I cannot be bothered chasing links for that as you haven’t supported you claim that the ALP wants to increase the immigration numbers… AS YOU CLAIM.
Am I??? I am not claiming something, then posting links that don't support what I am saying. That would be YOU.
You're saying I'm lying... then saying both articles I posted are lies... basically your argument is......IT IS ALL LIES Clearly you have a problem admitting you are wrong... you better close your eyes for the next part Gary is wrong. Gary is wrong. Gary is wrong. Gary is wrong. Gary is wrong. Gary is wrong. Gary is wrong. Gary is wrong. Gary is wrong. Gary is wrong. Gary is wrong. Gary is wrong. Gary is wrong. Gary is wrong. Gary is wrong. Gary is wrong. Gary is wrong.
No I am saying you’re lying by claiming the articles say something different to what they actually say. I said nothing to the credibility of the articles... Well, if I am wrong show me where… Show me where the ALP states it is increasing the immigration numbers (IF elected) from the near 200k to whatever... Otherwise, you got nothing… Simply saying I am wrong doesn’t make it so… LOL
Yes, they lost... isn't it YOUR claim that if people voted for these policies they would have won??? So apparently your claim is wrong...
You''re contradicting yourself. of course they would have won... because people would have voted for their policies Labor had the best policies imo, but people voted on conservative issues such as migration, Liberals decreased migration, labor wanted to increase. Also things such as GetUp, Adani drove the centre right and overall campaign of "change" was a failure... because life is good... why change
no contradiction. IT isn't my claim... As for who has the best policies. Apparently majority of Australians don't agree with YOU... contriving the policies after the event then claiming people would have done this or that... Apparently majority don't agree with you... No, doesn't matter what you say, the election shows your wrong;...
Probably because the wealthy live in suburbs that have tweety birds and morning glory... while those who are poorer are stuck with congestion, traffic issues and the general infrastructure problem of high migration. The bush perhaps disillusioned with the left, drifting towards the right and the protestors just pissing everyone off in general.
No, I twisted nothing. Clearly you trying to judge the election results on YOUR opinion and trying to justify the ALP loss based upon YOUR belief of best policy. Rather demeaning majority of Australia because YOU don’t agree with them… Get over it, they lost. People didn’t buy their crap and believed that their policy stance was bad for them AND Australia. Maybe because they remember their last dalliance at government, maybe because they really did consider the detrimental impacts of their policy. BUT I really do think it was they could not trust a party who rather than effectively create policy to grow Australia they would rather create policy based on the class warfare to pretend they are addressing the real issues of the nation. Clearly, it is just sour grapes and you now trying to weasel out of your claims.
