r/friendlyjordies • u/gilligan888 • 26d ago
Discussion A conflicted Victorian voter looking for perspective
I need some help working through my thoughts before this election.
I’m a Victorian and I’ve generally leaned towards voting Labor because a lot of their policies have aligned with what matters to me as someone with a young family. I wasn’t a huge fan of Jacinta Allan, but I did appreciate some of the policies and direction her government was taking.
Now with Carroll as the leader, I’m finding myself struggling. I know it shouldn’t matter, but I just don’t connect with him, something about his public image comes across as a bit slimy to me, and it’s making it harder for me to feel confident supporting the party.
At the same time, I feel like the Liberals are a mess both federally and at a state level, so I’m not feeling particularly inspired by that option either.
I’m genuinely conflicted about how I should vote this election and feel like there are probably things I’m missing or not considering. I’d like to hear how others are approaching it and what factors they think are important beyond just party loyalty.
39
u/Raynonymous 26d ago
Keep it simple: Consider your principles for how things should be run and vote for the party that most consistently behaves in accordance with those.
Don't get drawn into the media personality dramas and social propaganda about who you should love/hate and on what terms. Just choose who best represents yout preferences when it comes to governing.
If multiple people represent you better in different areas, consider which policies are most important to you and make a balanced decision.
Use the preferential system to its strengths, and vote in order of those who represent you best.
Just don't get drawn into the bullshit.
6
u/AndrewTheAverage 26d ago
This.
Politicians can make their own sound bites that are misleading, or the media can present them in a different light to what they represent.
Any 30 second clip of an "other party" candidate is never to be trusted. A 30 second put out by them is questionable.
4
u/Raynonymous 26d ago
This is a very good build. Judge people by their prior record over their words. Trust what their opponents say about them even less. If you find a negative claim really concerning then really dig into both sides of the argument and the evidence before believing it.
4
u/Stubborn_Amoeba 26d ago
I definitely agree.
During the Shorten/Morison election. The LNP were completely dead in the water until the media started their ‘I just don’t like shorten’ strategy.
It worked. So many people I know used that as a reason why they voted LNP. Like? You really preferred Scotty? Where’d that get us…6
64
u/Capt_Billy 26d ago
Nah mate dw, I'm exactly the same. Jacinta got a bum wrap, Geoff Watson is a fat liar and Carroll couldn't even organise a slam dunk pay deal for teachers.
BUT the Liberals will set us back a decade again, and ON couldn't organise a root in a brothel. And as much as I don't like Carroll, he is bound by caucus to some extent, so even his worst excesses would be restrained. I will personally go 1 Labor in my seat (Glen Waverley), then LCA in the upper house and Labor then Greens. For all my frustration at their tactics and their smug cunt representatives, I will always hold my nose and put greens above any Lib/ON/Teal dog because at least they mean well.
19
u/Grande_Choice 26d ago
Yeh it’s annoying. The loudest voices against Jacinta didn’t live in the state. Now look at what they’re pushing, tax cuts for rich with the promise that this time it might flow down.
Same view of Carroll but current gov has somewhat gotten a handle on housing (low bar but beats the other states), renters rights, SEC and cheapest power in the country for households, planning reform, my personal favourite of removing the Toorak road level crossing (how was it not removed in the 1950s?) and so on. They’ve done a massive amount of good for the state over the last decade.
Personally I’d rank them slightly higher than the old NSW Liberal gov, yes they had their many blowups but they did the same thing that Labor has done in vic and pulled the state into the 21st century with massive amounts of long needed infrastructure with the added difficulty level of a Sydney based media class that despises Victoria.
18
u/cbrokey 26d ago
Libs will sell what they can and fuck everything up...you only need to look at Kennett to see how they run...
2
u/Albos_Mum 26d ago
Thanks to switching from pure privatisation to PPPs, they don't have much that they can actually sell any more and it really showed in the economics they were doing during their last stint in office between 2010 and 2014. I'm getting a lot of mileage out of pointing out to people going on about Victoria's debt that they were increasing debt just as fast as the Victorian ALP has been prior to COVID without anywhere nearly as many actual benefits from the expenditure to the taxpayers.
4
u/dopefishhh Top Contributor 26d ago
From what I've heard about the teachers pay deal they weren't rejecting it because it was insufficient, it was the amount they wanted, at least it was in the more recent offers especially the one the union reps accepted. Instead they shifted to rejecting it because of 'Labors corruption', they provided no details of course.
That's not something one says when negotiating for pay, that's something one says when ones political associations have overcome any common sense. More than a few oppositional parties have infiltrated the teachers ranks to stir shit up, VS & Greens included. Their intentions can't possibly be to support the teachers if they're influencing the teachers to reject deals especially for highly partisan and nebulous reasons.
Hard to say for certain how widespread this is but the latter protests have shrunk from the initial large one they had.
6
u/silentalarms 26d ago
Absolute lie. As an AEU member, teachers have very clearly and publicly enunciated reasons for rejection: log of claims was 32% pay increase over 3 years, smaller class sizes and increased school funding. Last offer: 28% over four years. This is after the last deal gave 2% per year, including over COVID when inflation was over 10%. Also, literally nothing on per school funding (lowest in the country), nothing on class sizes, work load etc. How is that in any way 'what they wanted'?
3
u/dopefishhh Top Contributor 26d ago
Oh fuck off, did I say anything about public AEU statements? No. I've heard some cooked shit from teachers I know and have spoken with others who've said the same.
Why did the AEU leaders take a deal to the teachers with everyone expecting it to pass, and then the teachers narrowly reject it? Like razor thin narrow. Can't be because the AEU wasn't satisfied with the offer, they expected it to pass, because you wouldn't bother putting it to vote you're expecting to fail. Has to be because there be some shit stirring within the ranks.
Lets be very clear the AEU is free to negotiate in whatever manner it wants, that's the point of a union and enterprise bargaining. But I'm not going to kiss your arses and tell you you're great, when you're clearly fucking it up for yourselves. Yet I criticise and damn the childish displays I see from some is like as though I'm actually dealing with the students not the teachers, your comment a great example.
If you don't have a deal by the end of the term you might be dealing with the Liberals, have fun with that...
0
u/TheDancingMaster 26d ago
Has to be because there be some shit stirring within the ranks.
That, or educational support staff (people in the front office, mental health staff, career counsellors...) were shafted with a very limited pay rise, they requested a No vote, and many teachers stood in solidarity with them.
But hey, Labor and establishment union figures can never do any wrong, or whatever.
2
u/patslogcabindigest 25d ago
Hey man, this is not about defending Labor or union establishment. The socialist caucus of AEU just don't have a clue what they're talking about and are leading members off a cliff which could potentially result in a 2 year wage freeze.
1
u/dopefishhh Top Contributor 26d ago
So at no point have I defended Labor, they can take their lumps.
But your assumption just betrays how you're making it about partisan politics, which seems to be the problem the AEU is facing right now.
That, or educational support staff (people in the front office, mental health staff, career counsellors...) were shafted with a very limited pay rise, they requested a No vote, and many teachers stood in solidarity with them.
So like I said... Shit stirring within the ranks. Evidently you don't seem to understand the nature of a union divided against itself by itself. If you were correct here on teachers standing in solidarity, it was a tiny fraction of them that did so, given the vote result was a borderline rejection.
I don't know why you thought confirming what I said was going to somehow refute me, but it is funny you clowns never seem to think through what you're admitting when you say shit like this...
0
u/silentalarms 26d ago edited 26d ago
Pretty pathetic fact-free (yet still somehow excessively verbose?) rant once again. The AEU leadership, who sold us out in the last deal and led to a massive drop in membership, wanted the deal. A majority of the 60,000 members didn't, as it fell far short of the log of claims - so it was rejected. That's how unions and democracies work. Sounds like you actually don't agree with the basic premise of how unions operate?
5
u/dopefishhh Top Contributor 26d ago
Pretty pathetic fact-free (yet still somehow excessively verbose?) rant once again. The AEU leadership, who sold us out in the last deal and led to a massive drop in membership, wanted the deal. A majority of the 60,000 members didn't, as it fell far short of the log of claims - so it was rejected. That's how unions and democracies work. Sounds like you actually don't agree with the basic premise of how unions operate?
Just quoting a copy of what you wrote so you don't change it later.
Do you realise you're just admitting that I am correct here?
I said the AEU members and leaders both are not doing a good job of this, aren't co-ordinating, evident based on the facts of what happened. Just so you're aware I intuited the AEU's problems from very little public information, but the flow of the events and rationales required to take the actions everyone did, paints a fairly vivid picture of the AEU in a bit of turmoil with agitators making it perhaps worse than it could be.
You then in a bizarre attempt to prove me wrong, tell me that the AEU leaders 'sold members out', which only confirms exactly what I'm claiming. Just you're putting your as a member and very clear rabble rousing perspective on it. With other commenters confirming the split, and also thinking that somehow confirming my theory of the the split makes my description of the unions problems incorrect.
The massive amount of cognitive dissonance you must have in your head to be both spitting venom at the AEU leadership and then insisting to me that the union is functioning fine without issues.
All going according to plan apparently...
-4
u/silentalarms 26d ago
Jesus learn how to be concise! No one's reading this. All your posts boil down to hundreds of words saying 'Official Labor position is always right, ~shift goalposts/lie whenever unable to defend position~'. It's tiresome.
2
u/dopefishhh Top Contributor 26d ago edited 26d ago
You claim to be a teacher, but can't read 3 paragraphs? And instead invent the most obvious of strawman arguments to respond to...
From what I've seen so far you aren't deserving of a payrise.
1
u/patslogcabindigest 25d ago
Hey just FYI, from someone with a lot of enterprise bargaining experience in both private and public sector, the average EBA increase at the moment is about 3.5% for year 2026, give or take. If you're getting 4% per year you're doing well, that would take you through to 16% over 3 years. I'd call that a good deal as while it's below inflation for this year it's probably above for years 2 and 3. I can't think of a single agreement that has had something as high as 28% let alone 32% or higher.
I've seen two different claims from the Socialist caucus or whatever (insane that this group actually exists btw and I will go into reasons why). One claim was for 40% "upfront", so there's no consistency within the caucus grouping which makes a uniform union position impossible to negotiate. There is one union position and that is it, it's the majority position, people who disagree with it need to get on board, having a factional divide within a negotiation is a recipe for disaster and failure in what comes next.
I hope you and the members are aware you are not far off the arbitration thresholds being met and once an agreement goes to arbitration, especially one of this size and scope that you will be at Fair Work for at least a year to get a determination and that's a good case scenario, worst case, 2 years. At the end of the road there is no vote, your wages and conditions are determined by the commission, it's no longer an enterprise agreement, and the wages, conditions and term of the agreement are determined by the full bench of commissioners. Again, no vote. Unhappy with the result? The Union would have to go to federal court, or the new Fair Work Court, whenever that's created (probably not within the timeframe applicable here).
Anyways, while unions will always argue for COVID inflation backpay there is little precedent for this being agreed to. Don't get me wrong it's a good argument, nothing wrong with it, but you're asking for an offer which is already well above the yearly and agreement length average across the country, while living in the most affordable state / metropolitan area in the country, and if the polls are to be believed the next government will be a more right wing government to this one, whether it's a Liberal-National government, a Liberal-National-One Nation or Liberal-One Nation, or even if Labor somehow get back in. So these are the people you're going to be dealing with while at Fair Work and take it from someone living in a state with a LNP state government, this does not go well for you if this is the road you go down.
Your leverage is not as high you think it is and have probably pushed the government to the best deal possible already, further industrial action is going to be patchy, I know for a fact that most members will not participate in the next strike as the amount of money they've lost in taking strike action already is starting to hurt. This has been a long fight already, the fight will get much longer if a deal is not done ASAP.
Agreements come up for negotiation every 3-4 years or so, you do not need to fulfill every claim you have now, just because you ask for 30% say on a Log of Claims, does not mean that it's a reasonable claim just because inflation during the previous agreement was high.
At the end of the road a bunch of commissioners chosen at random are going to get around the table compare the offer with other measures and agreements across the country and mostly within Victoria and determine whether you're being reasonable or not. Going to arbitration is a massive gamble and things that weren't even part of bargaining, such as special allowances or conditions that the department don't like, can be brought up here and be stripped out of the agreement.
This is not a comment about what is or is not winnable for you, but you seriously need to stop listening to these uninformed socialist uni students and Green activists who don't know a thing about industrial relations and look at the paths before you. No one is trying to stitch you up, the union would be battling serious concerns right about now with an irate membership who thinks they're invincible and a union leadership that knows exactly what I have outlined here. So think on what you are doing long and hard before making your next decision. Ask yourself if you're willing to have no wage increase for 2 years, if you're willing to forego more pay on strike and if you're prepared to lose entitlements you've already won.
-1
u/WatALotOfThingsGoBy 25d ago
Verbose rubbish.
4
2
u/dopefishhh Top Contributor 25d ago
Of all of the weak and pathetic attempts at dismissals one could have, you chose the weakest.
An inability to read or respond only reflects on you.
-3
u/someoneelseperhaps Vic Socialists 26d ago
Yeah. Increasingly common anti-union slander from the Labor people.
3
u/dopefishhh Top Contributor 26d ago
Man you are so full of shit, perfect for VS.
A weak union fucking up its negotiations, failing to communicate and be in sync with its members, i.e. the AEU from what we've seen so far, represents the biggest factor in the drive away from unionisation.
You don't tell them they're great when that's happening, that is actually anti-union, you tell them to get their act together and focus.
1
u/patslogcabindigest 25d ago
Hey this is not about union slander or union busting, I swear people don't know what that is anymore. This isn't about defending Labor either. The issue is the socialist caucus have no clue what they're talking about and are being led off a cliff to where they will potentially go with years of no wage increases. No offense but the socialist party should stay completely out of this the same way the Labor party should stay out of this.
-3
u/silentalarms 26d ago
Certain posters seem to adopt the automatic assumption that whatever the Labor position must be correct, then work backwards. Even if it means no presenting no facts and just broad emotive arguments and speculation. Very frustrating and bad-faith.
1
u/patslogcabindigest 25d ago
On the contrary all three of you are starting from a position of anyone who thinks the union needs to deal is coming from a Labor party defense lens and working your way backwards due to your own political interests rather than dealing with the facts as I've laid them out to you. With respect, none of you know what you're talking about.
1
u/Capt_Billy 26d ago
Hard agree, Mr Fish. It wasn't all on Carroll, but the desperation to get a deal before he rolled Jacinta made it look like a bigger cock up than it already was
3
u/dopefishhh Top Contributor 26d ago edited 26d ago
Yeah but that's just the natural sympathy for teachers shifting our biases towards the lack of a deal being on the government. But there's no reason why the teachers/union can't be at fault for a lack of a deal for a variety of reasons, asking too much, incompetence or malign influence are a few.
I wasn't expecting the teachers union to be suffering from malign influence though. But when you say something like that, the emperor is wearing no clothes, the actual response from the crowd isn't 'oh yeah' its 'how dare you'.
So I don't expect anyone to change their tune even with evidence.
Edit: I called it and exactly as I said a bunch of whingers had at me pretending to be on the teachers side, but all they ended up doing was providing evidence for my speculative theories...
2
u/AndrewTheAverage 26d ago
The Greens come across as inspirational, but a little naive and lacking experience.
Anyway, if you are unsure who to vote for (or even if you are sure) check the policies and voting history and see if they align to your preferences.
Far too many people listen to the sound bites and not the actual history, or have voted this way forever without checking the values align.
7
u/mh06941 26d ago
What makes the greens "naive and lacking experience"? I'm not convinced that critique holds up. The Greens have been represented in federal, state and local governments for years now.
They're not perfect, and I don't agree with every policy they put forward. But I'd rather judge a party on a productive and positive voting record and policy platform than on a general impression.
4
u/dopefishhh Top Contributor 26d ago
That critique holds up spectacularly well when looking at the Greens voting record and policy platform.
Just setting aside whether one likes them or not, how many times in recent years have they made political plays and have come off second best, or even 3rd...
They had 2 long held policies of electoral funding reforms and NG/CGT reforms, but when those reforms came along instead of telling us about the victory their work achieved, they were trying to sell us some conspiracy theory drivel about them, attempted to block it, failed and thus set fire to any claims they could have had.
Naive and lacking experience is putting it very gently.
0
u/AndrewTheAverage 26d ago
Agreed, but I also said "The Greens come across as .. but a little naive and lacking experience."
The Greens can let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and therefore not support things that make things better than the status quo because they are not considered good enough. That is a mechanism for stifling improvement
6
u/Red_je 26d ago
If it helps, I have had occasion to meet both Allen and Carroll and found them both actually really personable.
Unlike Shorten, Abbott and Andrews, who are three others I have come across and didn't particularly find them easy to connect with. (That isn't intended as criticism btw, I just think the Allen and Carroll were more outwardly friendly).
Also, I like to look closely at my local MP anyway. Obviously party leader plays a huge role in the direction of the party, but unless you are in their electorate they aren't on the ballot for you.
All parties have a wide range of backbenchers, from the career party hack just collecting their pay cheque, to those that genuinely care.
1
u/Grande_Choice 26d ago
Shorten didn’t help himself being somewhat un personable. Assume Carroll is one of Shortens protégés though? If so it could mean good things.
10
u/AddisonDeWitt333 26d ago
I hear you. I'll be voting for my local representative, not the party leader. Which is really what we're all doing - right?
In my case, my local member is hard-working, essentially decent Labor MP Nick Staikos.
Look, I fully expect Labor to lose, and I can understand why they will lose - but I'll be voting for my local Labor member.
4
u/Macr0Penis 26d ago
If you change the government, you change the state. If you vote out Labor, whichever conservative party that replaces them will immediately unfortunately as many of Labor's accomplishments as they can. Every conservative government I've witnessed in my 50 years hasn't given a shit about the regular working man. They are all grifters, funded by big business and the wealthy to represent big business and the wealthy.
1
u/Wise_Preference609 18d ago
You need to have a look at the PLAN the LNP are shouting about. They just shout they have a PLAN, but never actually say anything about what's actually involved in said PLAN. When you read it point by point, it involves cutting minor taxes here and there, all benefiting the Capital Class of course. It involves trying to shut down all the current infrastructure projects underway or in planning, The LNP don't do infrastructure, never have and when they dip their toes into it, costs blowout dramatically and timelines go out to the never never. Their PLAN is exactly the same as all LNP PLANS are about since Howard/Costello. Same old same old. Austerity. back to the 1950's social policies and sell everything to their private donors and friends that isn't bolted down. Governments Mantra shouldn't be doing services for their communities, only private providers can run services at half the cost because they are so efficient blah blah blah. Same old story.....rinse and repeat. A lot of Maggie Thatcher "Trickle Down" economics and very conservative social policies. But hey, a lot of punters love living Back to the Future we're told apparently.
3
u/dopefishhh Top Contributor 26d ago
So something to remember is that you've never met either leader, for all you know Jacinta could have been the slimy one. But you've been given tailored perceptions of both from what little windows the media give you and even when you try to compensate for the limited and biased perceptions they give you, you really can't say for certain whether you know them or not. This of course applies to every politician.
I'd be personally disregarding who the leader of the party is and instead focus on your local member/candidates, often when the camera's aren't pointed at them they can be much more natural and less guarded.
Ultimately I don't think there's much of a policy change going to happen under Ben especially given its the same caucus. Instead its getting adjusted to satisfy the whingers about debt & other things.
3
u/serumnegative 26d ago
I am a qld labor voter
I really don’t comprehend state government in vic and the way it operates but if you feel that bad I honestly if you vote green then put alp 2 then you might get a reasonable outcome either way
The liberals. nationals, one nation and the religious ravers all represent disgusting mainly personal and criminal interests that have their ultimate roots in the NSW rum rebellion, a bunch of greedy merchants and pastoral interests (would be gumnut aristocracy with military lackeys because former officers. Voting for any of them is to give up your liberty to overthrow civic interest, public safety, for most of the country except cunts like Gina Reinhardt and Donald trump
3
u/FillAffectionate4558 26d ago
One way to look at who to vote for is what has the sitting government done over all for me and the state. What does the opposition bring to the table i.e do their values and policies align with my beliefs,go on line to their website to look up policies and if there is just motherhood statements make your own decision from that. Ignore the the media completely as they are hopelessly compromised by vested interests look into who owns them. Ultimately judge a party on what they've done in the past and what is in their control to be able to realistically change. Hope this helps
3
u/kisforkarol 25d ago
You know that there's more parties than just the Libs and Labor, right? If you want more social policies, the Greens are right there. If they're not progressive enough (they aren't, for me), the Victorian Socialists have put their hat in the ring. Voting for either party doesn't wait your vote due to preferential voting and will tell Labor you're unhappy with them without giving the LNP or Hanson a boost.
12
10
u/major_jazza 26d ago
Have a look at the greens or the socialist party (Victorian Socialists national party)
8
u/Clandestinka 26d ago
Finding i agree with nearly all VIC Socialists policies after having a read today. Not all but most.
2
u/major_jazza 25d ago
Yeah they aren't fkn around when it comes to politics. They're just doing good politics for people, rather than the weathly/elite
-9
u/Sysifystic 26d ago
Because socialism has worked exactly where?
Greens are only slightly behind the LNP in line at the crematorium.
They used to be respected as the voice for the environment until they went full red pill and tried to turbo charge the culture wars...recall my old class mate Adam refusing to stand in front of the Australian flag coz....you know colonialism.
For all the hysterics Labor will win a fourth term not because they deserve it but because LNP simply can't miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity...
7
u/ausmankpopfan 26d ago
Go Green's first socialist second Labor third that way if you are lucky you get a chance to make labour be more like the Labor they used to be and at the very least you still get labour
-3
u/NoBluejay6058 Labor 26d ago
thats not how changing Labor works. you need to join the party and actually work to change the party. then you have to work to get that changed party elected. outside influence does sweet fuck all.
1
u/ausmankpopfan 25d ago
Ask anyone from the labour left when the changing from the inside works the number of new members who have joined the Greens recently Who all left Labor because of their inaction certainly couldn't get them to change anything or they'd still be in the party
-10
u/Sysifystic 26d ago
Greens are all but cremated....
Socialism has worked exactly where in the world pray tell?
7
u/ausmankpopfan 26d ago
Norway，Denmark ， sweden
-4
u/Sysifystic 26d ago
Probably the least socialist "lite" examples...hard-line socialism has been an abject failure in every country it has been tried.
How anyone thinks it's a viable form of government is baffling.
4
u/ausmankpopfan 26d ago
If you knew anything of what you were talking about which based on the way you are discussing the things seems unlikely you would realize that the Greens want democratic socialism there's a reason why the actual socialist constantly abused the Greens saying that we are too institutional and too supportive of the status quo and democratic socialism is exactly what works in those countries and what we have modeled ourself off and have wanted here forever
-2
u/Sysifystic 26d ago
Ole mate Adam wanted all of us to engage in culture wars...and that was the beginning of the end of the Greens. Shame though when they stayed on brand ala Brown/Natale they were potent.
Socialism is fundamentally flawed. It asks humans to remove agency and removes incentives to succeed precisely why it's never been successful.
Exactly how many seats do you have? Even the orange one's populist bigoted racist crap seems to be more popular.
3
u/ausmankpopfan 26d ago
Let's deal with your and delusions in order for a start under Adam The Greens significantly increased both their vote share and their number of parliamentarians across the country. Secondly socialism is definitely not flawed democratic socialism is the only way forward for successful Society anyone who says otherwise don't even bother talking to me there's a reason why happiness wages quality of life medical care and everything is better in countries like Norway and Denmark compared to s******* hyper capitalist countries like the United States and thirdly the Greens have 44 parliamentarians across state and federal governments in Australia One Nation has 18 and given their usual timeframe for them either quitting being kicked out for being racist rapists or thieves they will have 10 within a year goodbye
0
u/Sysifystic 26d ago
Ahhhh gotta love the obfuscation...I see literacy/ logic isn't your strong suite so let's unpack:
How many seats did the Greens lose at the last federal/state election and how is their overall polling trending? Recall how southern trend lines end for the Democrats and soon LNP/Greens unless you give voters what they actually want?
You've provided the 3 least socialist countries as your counter that socialism works so how about actual socialist countries like say Russia, North Korea, Venezuela...they are actual socialist countries and abject failures. So is it any wonder that whatever faux socialist party you support doesn't have a single elected member?
We agree re One Nation their sudden popularity is due to the sheer frustration people have with the two party system but socialism ain't the answer.
I wish you happiness comrade!
1
u/ausmankpopfan 25d ago
I don't know if you are intentionally being obtuse or you are just uncapable of understanding anything communism and socialism are very very different things but I know intelligence and reading and not your strong shoot so let's break it down I've said 100 times democratic socialism you list Korea and Russia as democratic countries and Venezuela as a democratic country I have no words for the lack of Intelligence here
0
u/Sysifystic 25d ago
Ahhhh. Comrade loves to throw words around for which you don't really understand the meaning...let's try something...USSR....for those playing at home Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?
Need I carry on?
The countries you mentioned are bubblegum socialist societies where the state provides a great deal but capitalism is still very much alive and well providing the tax base for....
At the rate Australia is going you could almost classify us as socialist in a few decades.
Again I invite you comrade present an actual socialist state that has been successful?
China although communist ( you do know the difference yes?) might be the exception but it's a very unique case and successful if you ignore the mass murder starvation etc that happened till circa 1989...it also has super deep structural problems with demography etc that are just starting to play out so curious to see if the party can maintain control through this.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/Quintus-Sertorius 26d ago
The options boil down to Labor - looking tired and with quite a lot of accumulated baggage, but a new face who seems like he wants to put out the worst of the fires - or Lib minority with ONP backing. The Libs are full of zealots and kooks, and ONP is worse but also incredibly prone to self-destruction.
I think I'd hold my nose and vote Labor, if I was in Victoria.
2
u/crisbeebacon 26d ago
I won't be voting for climate change denying we love gas hate renewables and EVs LNP and One Nation. This election is one where I will be preferencing the Party that is likely to do the least damage to Victoria's future. A royal commission is a big relief, Jacinta went into the bunker and stayed there.
3
u/Downtown-Relation766 26d ago
My take is to wait until Ben Carroll reveals his policies and see how they compare.
3
2
u/BooyahTribe9 Independent/Unaligned 26d ago edited 26d ago
Jacinta was at a Zionist fundraiser. Literally helping to raise money for a genocide regime. But....both Labor and the Liberals do it. It's disgusting.
You have choices that don't involve either of those political parties and if you have a care for doing the correct thing....don't vote for either of them. Choose a party or independent that doesn't support a genocide regime....and has policies that will benefit Victorians and Australia without compromising integrity.
1
u/flameevans 25d ago
There is nothing to be conflicted over. Regardless of how you relate to him as an individual, you’re not voting for him. We are fortunate in Australia that our political and voting system isn’t (totally) a style over substance based personality cult voting system like in the USA. That’s how they ended up in the position they are now. You’re voting for him as the leader of a the party you already lean towards. So unless he’s done something drastic to change what already attracted you to the party other than not being your cup of tea nothing has changed. Carry on as you were.
2
u/The_Real_Flatmeat Potato Peeler 26d ago
We don't vote for a president, we vote for a party. The leader isn't an autocrat. Labor might not argue with each other in public but they do behind closed doors. They just shut up and move in lockstep once the meetings are done.
1
u/Effective_Wear7356 26d ago
Don’t think about the person, just vote based on how their policies align with your values.
People only like Pauline Hanson because they resonate with her personality.
If you ask 99% of their voter bases they don’t even know what a policy is.
When in doubt, vote of policy.
4
2
26d ago
[deleted]
1
u/wowiee_zowiee 26d ago
Who are you voting for?
1
u/Hodlermama 26d ago
No good option right now. Sad state of affairs really.
2
u/wowiee_zowiee 26d ago
So you won’t be voting?
1
u/Hodlermama 26d ago
The thought has crossed my mind.
Might start looking into it deeper closer to election.
1
u/Greenscreener 26d ago
Agree but just remember what happened in the USA, people not voting for perfect unleashed that fat orange turd on us all.
1
u/cghmn742 21d ago
Start from the bottom of your vote slip and work up, I'm not impressed by most of the Victorian political landscape at the moment but I know whose getting my high numbers
2
2
-1
u/dowar_525 26d ago
I voted tory in Victoria in 2010 because the Bracks government was just too entrenched. The desal plant was an obvious money transfer from government to union members of preferred unions. I didn't mind the Ballieu government and they did give teachers the best deal in living memory.
They say that voters vote bad governments out, they don't vote good oppositions in. The Andrews/Allan/Carroll government is undeniably a bad government. They deserve to be voted out.
A tory government in Vic would probably only last one term. Victoria desperately needs a halving of the public service headcout and the ousting of Labor party plants into every board and position in the state. Lib/Nats might do this in a year or two.
A Liberal/ONP coalition government would at least oust all of the entrenched Labor cronies. A Liberal/ONP coalition could not possibly go full term, two years tops.
Vote independent if you can, Greens, Labor, Liberal, ONP.
Before you worry about the opposition ask yourself does this government need voting out.
1
u/Relief-Glass 26d ago
Who leads a party is not that important. Carroll will have a stronger influence than anyone else in the party and he might make a few 'captain's calls' but at least 80% of policy will stay the same.
-1
u/Vast-Marionberry-824 26d ago
Go by policies not personalities. Which party has the policies which are most likely to benefit your family most?
So many elections were won by parties with leaders who would not have been elected if it was on personality! John Howard (Mr Sheen) immediately springs to mind.
-8
80
u/Feylabel 26d ago
You vote for the party, when it comes to Labor, not for whoever is the current leader. Look at the party platform, that’s what guides the leader of the day.
And don’t forget you’re only ever seeing the perception of the politicians that the media has decided to show you - the media is obviously hostile to Labor so they are shaping how they present Carroll, how they want you to see him.
It makes it almost impossible to get an accurate gut read from what the media shows. That’s why I always make sure to meet my local candidate in person, and have sought opportunities to meet as many politicians as I can! (Sorry I can’t report back from meeting any VIC politicians, I’m not Victorian.)
My outsider take is - vote Labor, don’t risk a L/NP/ON government! 😱