26 reasons to never vote Labor

Here’s the summary of Labor’s electoral loss tome

Labor lost the election because of a weak strategy that could not adapt to the change in Liberal leadership, a cluttered policy agenda that looked risky and an unpopular leader. No one of these shortcomings was decisive but in combination they explain the result. Indeed, Bill Shorten led a united Party, saw off two Liberal prime ministers and won all three campaign debates.

Labor’s tax policies did not cost the Party the election. But the size and complexity of  Labor’s spending announcements, totalling more than $100 billion, drove its tax policies and exposed Labor to a Coalition attack that fuelled anxieties among insecure, low-income couples in outer-urban and regional Australia that Labor would crash the economy and risk their jobs.

The Labor Party has been increasingly mobilised to address the political grievances of a vast and disparate constituency. Working people experiencing economic dislocation caused by technological change will lose faith in Labor if they do not believe the Party is responding to their needs, instead being preoccupied with issues not concerning them or that are actively against their interests. A grievance-based approach can create a culture of moving from one issue to the next, formulating myriad policies in response to a broad range of concerns. Care needs to be taken to avoid Labor becoming a grievance-based
organisation.

Low-income workers swung against Labor. Labor’s ambiguous language on Adani, combined with some anti-coal rhetoric, devastated its support in the coal mining communities of regional Queensland and the Hunter Valley.

On the whole, people of faith did not desert Labor, but Labor lost some support among Christian voters – particularly devout, first-generation migrant Christians. Other religious denominations did not swing decisively one way or the other.

Higher-income urban Australians concerned about climate change swung to Labor, despite the effect Labor’s tax policies on negative gearing and franking credits might have had on them.

There is no compelling evidence the election loss was an adverse reflection on Labor’s core values: improving the job opportunities, security and conditions of working Australians, fairness, non discrimination on the basis of race, religion and gender, and care for the environment.

Labor should retain these values. Its policies can be bold but should form part of a coherent Labor story, be limited in number and be easily explainable, making them less capable of misrepresentation.

Labor should position itself as a party of economic growth and job creation. Labor should adopt the language of inclusion, recognising the contribution of small and large businesses to economic prosperity, and abandon derogatory references to “the big end of town”. Labor’s policy formulation should be guided by the national interest, avoiding any perception of capture by special interest groups.

A modern Labor Party cannot neglect human-induced climate change. To do so would be environmentally irresponsible and a clear electoral liability. Labor needs to increase public awareness of the costs of inaction on climate change, respect the role of workers in fossilfuel industries and support job opportunities in emissions-reducing industries while taking the pressure off electricity prices.

Not bad. Here is the only material that matters though:

Federal Labor in Queensland

Labor’s vote in Queensland has been in decline since Kevin Rudd, a Queenslander, was elected Prime Minister in 2007. Queensland electorates as a whole have more Christians, economically insecure voters and coal mining voters than other parts of Australia, which helps explain the strong anti-Labor swing in the state. But the internal statistical analysis we commissioned confirms there is a broader anti-Labor sentiment in Queensland not explained by these characteristics. Queenslanders voted against Labor in 2016 and by more in 2019, leaving the Party holding only six of the state’s 30 seats.

In the 2016 federal election, One Nation preferenced Labor in the Coalition-held seats of Longman and Herbert, which Labor won. In the 2019 election, One Nation preferenced the Coalition in almost every marginal seat. Palmer’s United Australia Party only contested one seat at the 2016 election but contested many in the 2019 election, preferencing the Coalition in all seats. These preference arrangements further explain the anti-Labor swing in Queensland, but they also raise the question of why so many Queensland voters declined to give their first-preference vote to Labor.

What role did Clive Palmer play?

Following a preference deal with the Coalition, Clive Palmer dovetailed his $70 million advertising spend with the Liberal Party’s in the final two weeks of the campaign, moving his attack to Bill Shorten as “Shifty Shorten” and, in Western Australia, to a bizarre claim the McGowan Government sold an airport to China for $1.00. Palmer’s advertising blitz strongly amplified the Coalition’s anti-Labor message to economically insecure, low-income voters. In focus groups of soft voters, Palmer was described in the most derogatory terms, helping explain the poor vote he and his party received, but his blitz against Shorten took its toll on Shorten’s leadership standing.

Finding 40: The large size and targeted nature of Clive Palmer’s campaign had a significant negative effect on Bill Shorten’s popularity and on Labor’s primary vote.

The emergence on the Australian political scene of high-wealth individuals who deploy substantial financial resources to influence the outcome of elections must be resisted. Money can distort democracy. A policy response from Labor should be pursued despite the difficulty of success in this Parliament.

As occurred in the 2016 US election, social media platforms were used in the 2019 Australian federal election to carry messages that were entirely untrue, best exemplified by references to a death tax and Palmer’s claim the McGowan Government sold an airport to China for $1.00. Unchecked, this practice is likely to feature more prominently in future federal elections.

We recommend spending caps and truth in political advertising legislation based on the South Australian model be investigated and pursued in the Australian Parliament. Reforms to electoral laws are further discussed in Chapter 10.

What role did Pauline Hanson play?

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party polled well in Queensland, especially in regional and outer-urban seats, and also in the Tasmanian seat of Braddon. One Nation’s decision to preference the Coalition in the seats of Longman and Braddon probably cost Labor those two seats. In the other Queensland regional seats of Herbert, Capricornia, Dawson and Flynn, Labor’s primary vote fell while the Coalition’s primary vote rose. While the antiLabor swings in these seats were exacerbated by One Nation preferences, it would be hard to conclude One Nation preferences cost Labor any chance in those seats.

Finding 41: The preferences from Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party assisted the Coalition in winning the Queensland marginal seat of Longman and the Tasmanian marginal seat of Braddon.

Very thin. I mean, seriously, this is the election result right here. QLD decided it all by itself. Why does Labor think that ScoMo is focusing his entire agenda around it?

If this is as far as Labor is prepared to go in digging into why it lost ALL of QLD then it’s buggered before it starts.

Here are Labor’s 26 recommendations:

Labor’s philosophy and policy approach

Recommendation 1: Labor should retain its core values, including improving the job opportunities, security and conditions of working Australians, fairness, non-discrimination on the basis of race, religion and gender, and care for the environment.

Recommendation 2: The campaign policies offered can be bold but should form part of a coherent Labor story, be more limited in number and complexity, and be easily explainable so they are less capable of misrepresentation.

Recommendation 3: Labor should position itself as a party of economic growth and reform, job creation and rising living standards, drawing upon and expanding on its past economic reforms.

Recommendation 4: Labor should adopt the language of inclusion, abandoning divisive rhetoric, including references to “the big end of town”.

Recommendation 5: Labor’s policy formulation process should be guided by its strategy and the national interest, avoiding any perception of capture by sectional interests

Improving Labor’s standing with disaffected voters

Recommendation 6: Without compromising existing support, Labor should broaden its support base by improving its standing with economically insecure, low-income working families, groups within the Christian community and Australians living in regional and rural Australia.

Recommendation 7: Labor should develop a coherent strategy for engaging more fully with culturally and linguistically diverse communities, including Chinese Australians.

Electoral reform

Recommendation 8: Labor should pursue legislation capping individual political donations and legislation for truth in political advertising.

Organisational matters

Recommendation 9: A formal campaign committee should be established early and should include representatives of the Party and the leadership group. It should liaise with ALP state and territory secretaries in the formulation of the campaign strategy and encourage a culture of open dialogue.

Recommendation 10: Campaign policies should be released at a time that allows them to be discussed and understood but not so early as to divorce them from the likely circumstances pertaining at the time of the election. Local commitments should be timed in such a way as to allow candidates to promote them within their electorates.

Recommendation 11: Labor should focus on fewer target seats and do more to ensure robust local campaign organisations are in place.

Recommendation 12: A centralised First Nations campaign structure should be designed wih input from the First Nations Caucus and the National Indigenous Labor Network.

Recommendation 13: A project should be established to identify best practice in relation\ to engagement with culturally and linguistically diverse communities for the purpose of promoting this across the Labor network.

Recommendation 14: Labor should achieve greater gender diversity in its campaign teams.

Recommendation 15: The National Secretary and State and Territory Secretaries should develop targeted campaign engagements aimed at restoring Labor’s Senate primary vote.

Research capability

Recommendation 16: The National Secretary should commence a research procurement process before the end of 2019, with pre-established standards and expectations around quality and reliability. This process should deliver long-term contracts that assign research responsibilities to different providers.

Recommendation 17: Labor’s research program should inform its campaign strategy independent of day-to-day tactical demands and deliver a set of strategic principles that guide the next campaign. These principles should be embedded in the Opposition’s policy development and strategic decision-making process.

Recommendation 18: Research providers should be given opportunities to debate and critique research findings across methods. This should include collaboration between qualitative, quantitative and data researchers.

Recommendation 19: The National Secretariat should continue to identify opportunities for research collaboration and the sharing of resources with state and territory branches. The National Secretariat should also continue exploring and adopting innovative research methods.

Recommendation 20: The National Secretary must have the sole responsibility for determining the allocation of research program responsibilities within the campaign but must ensure there is a clear delegation of operational duties.

Digital campaigning capability

Recommendation 21: Labor’s next national campaign should be driven by a “digital-first” model that is fit for the digital age.

Recommendation 22: Labor must develop a comprehensive strategy for message defence and combating disinformation, which should include full-time resources dedicated to monitoring and addressing false messages.

National Platform and National Conference

Recommendation 23: The ALP’s National Platform should be reviewed and focused on values and principles, with the development of policy detail and the timing of releasing policies being the responsibility of the shadow ministry and the leadership group.

Recommendation 24: As an outcome of the review of the National Platform, it should remain bold but be streamlined and simplified.

Recommendation 25: The ALP’s National Conference should be held by the end of 2020.

Implementation

Recommendation 26: The National Secretary should be responsible for the implementation of the recommendations and should be asked by the National Executive to prepare an implementation plan reporting quarterly to the National Executive Committee and annually to the National Executive.

Mostly managerialist guff.

In conclusion, Labor appears unwilling to face up to the cold hard facts that it STINKS in QLD and so long as this cowardise prevails it is screwed.

Houses and Holes

David Llewellyn-Smith is Chief Strategist at the MB Fund and MB Super. David is the founding publisher and editor of MacroBusiness and was the fouding publisher and global economy editor of The Diplomat, the Asia Pacific’s leading geo-politics and economics portal.

He is also a former gold trader and economic commentator at The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, the ABC and Business Spectator. He is the co-author of The Great Crash of 2008 with Ross Garnaut and was the editor of the second Garnaut Climate Change Review.

Latest posts by Houses and Holes (see all)

Comments

  1. Also I love how the voter is too dumb to understand Labor’s message.

    This from a lifetime Labor voter, union organiser, former party member.

    Who will never vote Labor again.

    Why not ask me and LSWCHP, cockwombles?

    • “Also I love how the voter is too dumb to understand Labor’s message.” – because Labour was scared to tell the truth and explain that we fckd up and now we need to take a bitter pill on order to put the house in order. Yes, that would have make Labour lose the elections but:
      If Labour kept the leadership (even Bill Shorten though very unpopular would have gain lot of credibility later) and the policies people would have realised they were wrong. Over the next 3 years everyone will understand that at the end of the day one has to pay the piper. By next elections Labour would have won by not even trying.
      As per H&H comments Labour lost Qld and the only reason is because they support ultra high immigration. I’d say Labour lost few votes in NSW for the same reason they lost in Qld.
      Plus Labour is full of cvnts like the one they have as leader now.

      Only matter of time before Unions create their own party. They should.

      Edit – main reason why I did not vote Labour is ultra high immigration. This is coming from first class wog with heavy Russian accent fckn. This is how insane this policy is.

        • I voted Labor through lack of choice as LNP are the enemy of most of what I stand for. Labor have lost their way and Albo who I like as a person may not be strong enough to be able to lie as hard as the LNP do. We need a complete thick faced Castro type to stand up to one of the most fascist governments in history. Albo is a great bloke but is he a great leader? Boobs bill was neither, an average bloke and a poor leader/ politician. We need a tyrant to take down the Tyrants as LNP have more than one a bit like another party in history did.

      • At this man and I’m watching Anthony Albanese. He deliver a speech in Adelaide. And I would say that he is worse than useless. He hasn’t had a single word of inspiration uplifting. There’s no plan. There’s no leadership qualities. Just a bag of wind making noise Alp gone for all money.

    • Yeah I reckon a focus group consisting of you, me and Ermo would be able to lay it all out pretty plainly.

      My Dad’s 84 and was a lifelong Labor voter, union member etc like me, and even he’s lost to them. They’re r00ted, they don’t know why and most importantly, they don’t want to know why.

      • It tells you all you need to know about the ALP that the loss of my vote as a rusted on Labor voter has been basically accepted with a shrug of the shoulders, whilst they are deciding to instead focus on “ Recommendation 7: Labor should develop a coherent strategy for engaging more fully with culturally and linguistically diverse communities, including Chinese Australians.”

        I mean , they did momentarily concede that my vote , as a blue collar ,regional voter of the type who was the previous foundation for the party ,would be nice to have in their pocket , it certainly shouldn’t come at the expense of “ existing support “ which is obviously those who aren’t their traditional voter base as they’ve just made very clear.

        The ALP is openly and repeatedly acknowledging that they must move to become even more the exclusive party of vibrants and particularly concentrate on becoming the recognised ACP ( Australian Chinese Party ).

        “ Recommendation 13: A project should be established to identify best practice in relation to engagement with culturally and linguistically diverse communities for the purpose of promoting this across the Labor network.”

        So they’ve learnt nothing beyond….” We haven’t abandoned Australians to the extent that vibrants see us as representing them first and foremost and this is where our future lies so it is full steam ahead with the disregard of the Australian Labour component of the ALP“.

        Dead to me.

        • Yeah mate. I actually wrote to my local member explaining that they’d lost my vote after more than 3 decades of consistent ALP voting at state and Federal elections.

          The response I got back was along the lines of “Well, we’re sorry to lose your vote, but we’re gonna do what we’re gonna do and we don’t care about you not voting for us any more. Bye bye”. It was insulting, and showed no apparent awareness that my individual contact with them probably represented a thousand other people like me who couldn’t be bothered to make the effort.

          If I was running a political party, and I got a letter like that, I’d have a team go out to conduct an interview with the person to find out what the hell was going on, because that would indicate that my electoral base was disappearing, as it has with the ALP.

          Anyway, they’re dead to me too. Dead men non gender specific persons walking, really, they just don’t know it.

          • I appreciate your motives.
            Labour are lost to their base, floundering around while their share of first preference votes dwindles at each election.
            Eventually they will merge with the LNP.

          • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

            Bolstrood is 100% correct:

            “Eventually they will merge with the LNP”

            This is EXACTLY what needs to happen – it needs to happen because it has to be shown that Labor (in its current form) are EXACTLY the same as the LNP in term of a national interest basis.

            How does it need to occur?

            PHON (or their equivalent) need to become the Opposition – they need to show the public that they are 100% behind Australians, especially working Australians. They can only achieve this if their aim isn’t to get into Govt as a partnership with the LNP, their goal has to be that they aim to become Australia’s only legitimate opposition and refuse to join either the LNP or LAB.

            Sure they can support the Govt when they actually (rarely) put forward a piece of policy in Australians interests, but in the main they have to force the LNP to do deals with LAB in order to get things done (or visa versa) – I mean this in a BAU sense and the ripping off of ordinary Australians. They have to continuously expose that LNP/LAB for what they are, two wings of the same Globalist party, and the fact that neither of the major parties is are a legitimate opposition. In short they have to resist the perks and bribes of becoming part of the Coalition and the prestige and pay rises that come from being appointed to various Govt boards, etc. They have to become the political pariahs and own that position in the same fashion as AfD has in Germany, and the Rightest parties in Sweden and Denmark.

            Time, and repeated exposure of the non-distinction between the ALP and LNP in terms of pursuing the national interest vs Globalist interests at the expense of existing Australians will do the rest of the work for them – if they do this, then they WILL be the opposition following the next election and they WILL be the Govt in the election after that.

            I would also recommend that they change their name from PHON to National Labor.

          • bolstroodMEMBER

            Thanks for the endorsment Stewie, but I was thinking (hoping ) that Labor’s joining the LNP will leave room for a real leftist party to emerge.
            Dealing with the Climate crisis will demand we act collectively.
            I do acknowledge that PHON policies reflect old Labour policy,
            but there are to many chancer scumbag looney’s sitting at the top,
            Ashby, Hanson are just 2.

          • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

            PHON are in their current form – but Mark Latham joining shows the potential to pull it seriously to the Nationalistic left. Hanson has to go though – she is a sucker for being PUA’d into supporting LNP policy with juicy bribes onto joint committees etc, which gooses PM’s salaries

            https://www.smh.com.au/national/full-list-of-federal-mps-entitlements-20090521-bh0v.html

            Also, unless they refuse to participate from the LNP how can they ever expose the LNP/LAB Globalist duopoly for what it is.

            There won’t be an outright left wing workers party to emerge – the sense of betrayal is all to real, and the inevitable consequence of Mass Migration and Multiculturalism from a social point of view, combined with their ‘lived experience’ has also ‘red pilled’ a large segments of that demographic.

          • Long term Labor voter also. Nothing annoys me more than the gender/ Gay/ black vs white/ man vs women/ nonsense. The lies they are about equality then in the same sentence Labor promotes an unelected aboriginal representative in parliament. Ending homelessness this one problem dwarfs the rest I mentioned x 1million. Make the wealth and ownership of our country equal as possible by making fair rules which do not allow some to go above the law while others sleep on the street subject to no police protection.

  2. “Queensland electorates as a whole have more Christians, economically insecure voters and coal mining voters than other parts of Australia, which helps explain the strong anti-Labor swing in the state. But the internal statistical analysis we commissioned confirms there is a broader anti-Labor sentiment in Queensland not explained by these characteristics.”

    Translation… We are judgmental and we have no idea who we represent.

    All the Liberals have to do is let the people live, stimulate growth, better infrastructure and encourage some common values/standards.

  3. Ronin8317MEMBER

    It is call ‘Groupthink’, and anyone who dares to suggest otherwise will be kicked out of the party, so nobody dares to speak the truth, nor is the leadership interested in the truth.

    In the book ‘Tombstone’ by Yang Jishen, it details how the ‘Great Leap Forward’ happened in China under Mao, resulting in a vast famine causing millions of death and even cannibalism. During that era, anyone who dares to say “it won’t work” is labelled a “rightist’ and executed, while those who fabricated results are promoted. This is exactly how the ALP behaves today.

  4. Jeez, these people are completely deaf to real Australians. Why not talk to them, instead of “focus groups”.
    They can roll up most of their 26 theses into 1 point, the crush loading of Australian:

    Reason 0: High immigration. The core reason for
    0.1 shrinking wages
    0.2 full hospitals
    0.3 crowded schools, roads & trains
    0.4 high corporate donations levels to the Liberals

    It’s never gonna happen, instead we get

    Labor should develop a coherent strategy for engaging more fully with culturally and linguistically diverse communities, including Chinese Australians.

      • Recommendation 14: Labor should achieve greater gender diversity in its campaign teams.

        More quotas to fill, f-wits. Yeah because I will only vote for the party that has more women and transgender representation.. FFS. I’ll vote for whoever is competent to do the job!

    • Couldn’t make it up. They (Shorten-Bowen) baldly tried to buy the Chinese vote with the Chinese grannies strategy. And it blew up in their faces. And now they’re pretending it never happened. And so is the media.

      • Ronin8317MEMBER

        That policy is definitely targetted predominantly at Indians grannies rather than Chinese grannies. Chinese already have a long term visitor visa in place since 2012.

    • They have said this because they’ve just realised that all the ethnic immigrants we’re importing are socially conservative. Great way to make yourself irrelevant… import more conservative voters.

  5. thefatgeneralMEMBER

    Look at where they lost the election – QLD and northern Tasmania. And yet one of their recommendations is “Recommendation 14: Labor should achieve greater gender diversity in its campaign teams.”

    Because sure – increasing diversity is going to help connect to blue collar communities who don’t swing to this sort of inner city crap

  6. the_bystanderMEMBER

    “Recommendation 14: Labor should achieve greater gender diversity in its campaign teams.”

    What the hell does this have to do with the election loss? Looks like the authors don’t know either since they just brush over the topic by talking about how they introduced affirmative action in 1994. Great, it’s so clearly been helping Labor win elections these last 25 years…

    • Betoota are centre left and treat Labour with kid gloves. Ironically they went really hard on Libs and Dutton prior to election and went quiet in it afterwards.

      Be great if they could be consistent on both houses of garbage.

  7. Classic Weatherill wet lettuce report! Was always going to be written like this. The review process made the mistake of appointing stale old ALP generals. First thing they should have done was appoint outsiders to do the review, people with nothing to do with ALP. ALP never wanted the real results.

  8. TheRedEconomistMEMBER

    A good start would be to punt Penny Wong…

    Many cannot stand the way her “know it all” & condescending style.

    This is a put off for nearly all men and most women as well. Her demographic appeal or popularity is unfortunately way to narrow.

    She is political Kryptonite..

    • She is smart and capable and ambitious. Sometimes i think she is good for the party and other times I just can’t stand to see her on tv on her soap box. Over all I don’t think she will ever appeal to what Labor core base should be. And maybe that’s the problem.

      • I agree, sometimes I can’t stand her, but I think she’s actually clever and therefore I don’t think we should boot her because of her smugness. I think she just needs to re-evaluate the way she comes across.

        • It would help if she was able to fake the slightest trace of warmth, empathy or any other human characteristic. An actual android would display more humanity than she does.

          Oozing supercilious contempt for the dimwits whose votes she is courting doesn’t help much either. I’m sure she’d be a great back room faceless woman, but ahe should never have been put in front of the punters.

          • You can tell she’s a typical dyke that hates men. Especially working class men lol..and she doesn’t hide it.

            But I may not like her attitude, but I respect her ability to do a job and she’s far more capable than a lot of the shyte we have now. So I can put aside my dislike of her as a smug condescending person and still think she’s an asset to Parliament and probably a good negotiator for relationships with Asian in particular.

            Still can’t stomach her though!

  9. Labor is two parties in one that should split. it has the mostly centre happy with corruption lot that would fit in well with the libs and it has the left wing anti white male hating feminazis with a smattering of radical anti everything brigade. Labor is never going to be a unified party. Especially under albo the weakest leader ever. At least shorten could keep most of the left wing idiots inline during the election. But if they had won watch out.

  10. Recommedation 1: Fvck off legazens
    Recommedation 2: Voters be thick.
    Recommedation 3: Scomo!
    Recommedation 4: Fvck off legazens
    Recommedation 5: Obeid LOL
    Recommedation 6: Nosepeg and gloves
    Recommedation 7: Fvck off legazens
    Recommedation 8: Donations drying up
    Recommedation 9: What can we privatise?
    Recommedation 10: Look, a squirrel!
    Recommedation 11: I don’t know why we bother.
    Recommedation 12: Mundine!
    Recommedation 13: Fvck off legazens
    Recommedation 14: Pale male and stale!
    Recommedation 15: When it’s serious enough, lie.
    Recommedation 16: Oooooh contracts! Anyone know anyone?
    Recommedation 17: We need more policy officers.
    Recommedation 18: Ditto
    Recommedation 19: Ditto
    Recommedation 20: Ditto
    Recommedation 21: Interns!
    Recommedation 22: Young Labor!
    Recommedation 23: Thick goldfish voters
    Recommedation 24: Ditto
    Recommedation 25: Partay!
    Recommedation 26: Can we say Executive one more time comrade?

  11. Jumping jack flash

    No, no, no. This is not the reason they lost.
    This is a pile of leftist, puffy, self-congratulatory, crap.

    The real reason is that the voting public are much more undiscerning. They believe, rightly or wrongly, that the Libs have some magical power over the banks and can support the debt they need to be successful.

    The Libs are viewed as the “bank whisperers”, and Johnny Howard was the one who started that one with his whipping of the banks and slashing of the interest rates that started off this whole mess, before handing the reins over to the RBA to finish the job.

    Labor is fighting an uphill battle on many fronts:
    1) Everyone who wants debt believes the Libs can pull the strings to provide it.
    2) Everyone who already owns mountains of debt in the shape of houses, believes that the Libs can and will pull the strings to stop the house prices from falling and to keep interest rates low.
    3) Everyone who is enjoying the piles of debt that others have given them believes that the Libs will tip the balance between rich and poor in favour of the rich.

    Its therefore Libs in the lead on all the areas that matter to the new “savvy [mum and dad] investor” who has replaced Hawke’s “noble worker” as being the epitome of the average Australian in the 21st century.

    It is all about the debt and the trust that the incumbent party will continue to keep it worth something.

    For Labor to succeed they need to get with the times. There are no workers anymore, there are only aspiring investors and debt serfs so ALL the Labor policy must align to that and help support all the different levels of society with respect to the debt.

  12. “Labor’s tax policies did not cost the Party the election” and “higher-income … despite the effect Labor’s tax policies on negative gearing and franking credits might have had on them” show IMO they really don’t think the average person has the intelligence to measure their situation and judge policies accordingly. Their hubris cost them the election – when they start actually realising the fault is in them not the “uneducated voters” then that’s the first step to becoming a relevant party again. Since these really were the two major policies most highlighted they should own up to the fact that these contributed to their loss and try to actually understand why.

    What the average voter cares about:
    – Wage increases/ a fair share of profts from the economy.
    – Infrastructure that matters and they will use (e.g. hospitals, train lines to suburban belts, water pipelines, community environmental infrastructure, etc) vs things like (airports, freight lines, toll roads, private hospitals etc) that are seen as net negatives. i.e. things they use and see everyday and help vs hinder them.
    – Having a job at all and somewhat selfishly being able to service their commitments (e.g. house mortgage).

    Rich people didn’t care about negative gearing and franking credits because they don’t earn all their income from wages (exempt from NG changes) and they are on higher income bands where franking changes wouldn’t affect them anyway. Its the poorer section of society that are using these that would actually take the hit. Also many outer suburban workers and townships anecdotally rely on tradie kind of work as well and many had already seen what the threat of these policies was doing to their pipeline of work (see building approvals) and voted accordingly.

    • Jumping jack flash

      “..they really don’t think the average person has the intelligence to measure their situation and judge policies accordingly. Their hubris cost them the election – when they start actually realising the fault is in them not the “uneducated voters” then that’s the first step to becoming a relevant party again.”

      +1

      The average voter is completely unsophisticated, but they know what they want. As you say.

      The average voter just wants a nice, easy, pile of debt to take on to buy a house, or another house, or another one, and then enough income to afford it all. They’ll take endless capital gains in place of income, but only if they don’t need to think too much about it. In fact, most voters wouldn’t even know what “capital gains” were. They just want their place to be worth a heap more than they paid for it when they eventually sell it.

      And the problem is that the average voter believes that the Libs can deliver this. Labor is viewed as being all about the unwashed worker, the life that these voters want to escape from by taking on an insanely huge pile of debt and buying a house with it! The average voter also believes that the Libs will be able to negotiate with the banks to provide this gargantuan pile of debt.

      • Jevons ghostMEMBER

        You know wot? You could be on to something quite profound here. How come nobody else here has come up with this simple thesis thus far? Or maybe they have, somewhere out there in a parallel universe or such like. Goodonyamaaate! William of O would be proud of you.

      • Or a bit less cynically jjf people just want t buy a house to live in and maybe raise a family, go to work every day and that be enough to have an average lifestyle following a standard formula without caring too much about economics and instead enjoy life. What Labor offered bascially threatened every one of these points in some way with lower prices trapping them for doing the “usual family formation” mortgage and job losses to boot. The average guy doesn’t care about interest rates and politics or economics in general; when he starts talking about these things as per last election you know he’s terrified amd feels he HAS to learn them just to survive and his lifestyle is no longer simple. In other words someone has failed and needs to be taken down in this case labor.

      • The typical voters perspective would be that voting Green probably means identity politics, and social issues rule the day. My house will probably fall, and I probably will lose my job as they have no idea what they are doing. They only care about inner city voters and dont actually understand regional issues amd are completely out of touch with the average worker. As a middle income.earmer they will screw with the only asset I could potentially obtain and understand (e.g 1-2 houses). And they dont really care about the environment anymore anyway and want mass immigration which means more traffic, and a worse lifestyle overall. While that may not all be true (I think a lot of it is) I can see why they think that way.

        • Well none of it per their policies and the only thing that might be by their actions is immigration, and that’s only because they aren’t actively against it.

          Despite what some people seem to believe, you can both want better conditions for workers AND think racism, bigotry and discrimination are bad.

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in now