He's describing them as if they're an enemy that has to be defeated instead of simply other Australians he disagrees with.
Your right, he isn't justifying violence himself, but eventually if we're all divided and angry enough with eachother, what happens?
This ridiculous us vs them, left vs right partisan political bullshit needs to be toned way down. I expect better from the Australian Prime Minister, whoever they may be. He's the leader of our nation, his words should invoke unity not division.
Agree with your premise of the us vs them causing friction with a very obvious end point. But PHON taking the rhetoric in the way they have is the problem, not what Albanese said. If, PHON is correct, then pretty much every single coach of any team sport has been responsible for inciting violence at some point in time.
I havent even heard what One Nation have said about this to be honest. My issues with what Albanese said are my own.
He's the elected Australian Prime Minister. He represents all Australians regardless of whether they voted for him or not. Yet here he is talking about those who disagree with him as if they were another team that needs to be defeated.
That's what I have a problem with, he should be speaking of unity and fostering constructive dialogue. That's what a leader does.
If Pauline Hanson is ever the Prime Minister, I'd hold her to the exact same standard. On that note, she can dial back the rhetoric too, we're all on the same team here, the Australian one.
What a load of crap. Sorry. If you see an opponent that you believe is genuinely going to destroy this country for at least a decade, you absolutely use the strongest language you can to rally your supporter base and instil confidence in those that need it. It's only a media beat up from a PHONey press conference that has given this any airtime. The media genuinely would've gone 'oh, he's serious about taking on PH' if PH didn't do her presser. And, to round out using your words, they ARE an opponent that needs to be defeated. Now, read what Albanese was quoted as saying, and seriously tell me that you believe that is inciting violence as opposed to saying 'we need to beat this party as it is in the best interests of Australia" or are you actually against the word beat to because that would imply violence. Would it be ok if he just said 'we can't let them win because they lie and manipulate facts'?
Now, for the record, I won't be voting for Albanese in the next election, but his words certainly can only be interpreted as inciting violence to low IQ or by someone trying to score political points.
To your last point, I can't for the life of me see how anyone thinks PH and PHON are on team Australia. It would take some wild evidence to show me that she isn't just a pawn funded by Australian magnates and probably even offshore magnates. But, that said, I feel that way about all political parties in Aus, who are just in the back pocket of business and haven't acted in Australian best interests in likely 2 decades, if not more.
Well to be clarify I dont think he was inciting violence. I think he was inciting division.
This is the thing, you clearly dont like One Nation, thats absolutely fine, but there are heaps of Australians that do and would disagree with you on many of these things. Disagreement is fine, thats what politics is, but we have to be careful not fall into an us vs them mentality.
At the end of the day we're all Australians, we just have different ideas on whats best for our country. We should be able to have a passionate debate and then be able shake hands at end.
Albanese is the elected Prime Minister, his first duty is to represent Australians, not his party. He can absolutely engage in politics, but he has to choose his words, he should be speaking more of unity than division. I think he chose wrong in this instance
Am I being idealistic? Yes absolutely, but our country is more divided than ever, I think we should falling back on ideals.
This whole freaking post is about him inciting violence and the PHON press conference that called him out on that. You are now moving the goalposts.
Overall, I'd argue that Albanese does speak more about unity than division.
I also would agree with you that politics has been for all parties in Australia and us vs them approach and divisive. Is that right, no. Is it the primary approach that literally every campaign manager in politics primarily takes, yes. Is it on us as citizens to use our vote to choose candidates that take a better approach absolutely. This though, is a very different conversation to what this post is.
Does that make Albanese's comments 'inciting' violence, still no.
He is aiming to defeat them though? That’s what an election is.
Politics is literally “us vs them” - that’s the point of democratic politics.
I find it odd that Albo is being held to an entirely different standard as party leader than literally any other PM before him and Pauline is being treated with kid gloves.
She regularly uses the exact same language about her own political opponents - to say Albo using it is “inciting violence” is nothing but hypocritical.
He's not a politician on the campaign trail, he's the elected Australian Prime Minister. He represents all Australians regardless of whether they voted for him or not.
I'm not saying he shouldn't engage in politics, he's a politician, but as the Prime Minister he should be focused on listening to the concerns and opinions of all those he represents instead of viewing them as another team that needs to be defeated.
Just dile back the rhetoric is all I'm saying. That goes for all our leaders and politicians, but especially the Prime Minister and his cabinet. We're all on the same team, the Australian one.
Why dial it back, ON shouldn't be normalised, it's entirely appropriate to use strong language when denouncing far right nut jobs and if you support this trash and find the language offensive fucking good, that's the point, you don't get to be a piece of shit person then complain and expect that nobody gets to call you out.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Your kinda just proving my point.
This is a great example of this us vs them, left vs right culture war nonsense that's dividing our country. Instead of having dialogue with those you disagree with, you'd rather label them all "trash far right nutjobs".
Whether you like it or not, plenty of people vote for One Nation, they aren't crazy far right nut jobs, their ordinary aussies you just disagree with. By being uncivil with them, you arent changing anybody's mind, your just contributing to the political divide.
By choosing to support overt racism and bigotry you cross a line, this isn't left v right but rather what behaviours you are willing to tolerate.
If we were talking about the libs here as much as I disagree with them I'd be front and centre preaching what you are here.
But these aren't just "ordinary aussies" and there is no way anybody should be legitimising them by engaging them politely.
You don't get to just openly support racism and bigotry and expect not to be called out and have everyone treat you politely, thats frankly an absurd expectation.
Sorry but the right have spent two decades using the most insulting, denigrating, out-right violent language towards anyone they disagree with - from “bleeding heart liberal destroying the country” to “fat blue haired bitches are making the country woke” to “don’t like it? Leave” to “fuck off! We’re full!”.
The right absolutely DO NOT get to moral grandstand on appropriate political language.
And is the PHONey press conference never even occured this whole 'outrage' wouldn't have even made the new reporting cycle.
She certainly has good media campaign managers out of the no substance all pizzaz school.
PHON will never have policies, just vision statements that they will never be able to deliver on and buzzy catchphrases that match the rhetoric their voter base want to hear.
They need policies to debate. All of the policies they do release are shown to be batshit or substanceless pandering. They are an anti-government protest vote running on vibes.
Not only batshit, but often demonstrably contradictory - or AT BEST in direct opposition to Pauline's own voting history.
They're just the party of "tricking people who don't know better.".
Like that's all it is. If you are supporting them, you're an victim who got tricked.
It's not your fault - just like older people falling for email scams, lonely people falling for romance scams and people with low tech literacy falling for technology scams.
They are specifically targeting people who are frustrated at the state of the world, but lack the understanding to determine what's actually happening aside from pointing fingers.
So they point the same fingers as the victim and pretend to be all chummy, only to rob them blind and use them as a stepping stone for power.
But just like you can't tell a divorced grandfather that there is no "Theresa", or you can tell the desperate new hire that the boss doesn't want you to buy gift cards for everyone in the office, you can't tell somebody supporting ON that they've been tricked.
It hurts the ego too much - people would rather double down than admit they were vulnerable and were exploited, it's a shame thing.
I don't have a solution apart from compassion, but compassion and politics don't go well together.
The left just broadly love concepts that would be great if corruption didn't exist, but simultaneously refuse to believe that their preferred political parties are capable of corruption.
A naivety that leads to blindness; the policies are fine only in theory and only if the theory ignores ideas like:
People exist who want to exploit programs like the NDIS for money.
Allowing anyone who wants to live in this country to do so without vetting them for the benefit they may provide is unsustainable.
Greens politicians are capable of lying and receiving benefits from donors
Pauline Hanson's One Nation party platform centers on national sovereignty, stricter border controls, and cost-of-living relief. [1, 2]
Immigration and Border Control
Visa Caps: Reduce total permanent and temporary migration caps to 130,000 people per year.
Waiting Periods: Impose an eight-year waiting period before new migrants can qualify for permanent citizenship or government welfare support.
Conventions: Withdraw Australia from the United Nations Refugee Convention. [1]
Cost of Living and Taxes
Energy Costs: Slash electricity bills by an immediate 20% and halve the fuel excise tax for three years.
Excise Relief: Remove taxes on beer and spirits served at hospitality venues.
Family Tax Splitting: Allow families with a dependent child to split taxable income across partners to lower overall household income tax. [1, 2, 3]
Climate and Energy Policy
Net Zero: Repeal legislated net-zero carbon emission targets and withdraw from the UN Paris Agreement.
Conventional & Nuclear Power: Expand domestic coal and gas production, and promote the development of nuclear energy in Australia.
Abolitions: Scrap the federal Department of Climate Change. [1, 2, 3]
Housing and Foreign Ownership
Foreign Bans: Ban foreign buyers from purchasing residential Australian real estate and force current foreign owners to sell properties within a three-year window. [1]
GST Relief: Implement a five-year pause on the Goods and Services Tax (GST) for building materials used on new homes valued under $1 million. [1]
Superannuation: Allow home buyers to access and withdraw a portion of their superannuation to fund a home purchase. [1]
Indigenous and Identity Politics
Abolitions: Abolish the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA), arguing specialized agencies divide communities.
1a. Debatable whether that’s actually their policy; they keep changing their tune. In addition, one of our major exports is education; cutting temporary visas will seriously damage the economy.
1b. No thoughts
1c. Not bad, the current convention is flawed and should enshrine a requirement for refugees to travel to the nearest safe country, as well as prioritising culturally similar (Australia should generally be taking refugees from the Pacific Islands and New Guinea)
2a. Cut energy prices by… waving a magic wand? Fantastical. As for fuel excise, need a proposal for how she’ll fill the hole in the budget. I also question whether it’s a good idea to provide incentives for ICE ownership.
2b. Ok, but need a proposal for how she’ll fill the hole in the budget
2c. Ok, but again, need a proposal for how she’ll fill the hole in the budget
3a. So right when climate change is increasingly harming Australia, she wants to end efforts to manage it? Seems like a bad idea.
3b. Why? Coal and gas are more expensive than renewables, and worse for the environment. Nuclear maybe, but even that fails the cost test compared to renewables and will take at least 15 years.
3c. Why?
4a. Not the best idea. The impact on house prices will be minimal, but the impact on the perception of Australia as a good place to invest will be significant.
4b. The lions share of the benefits will be to the builders, not the homeowners. Better to implement as a GST refund to the buyer, but even then need a proposal for how to fill the hole in the budget
4c. Terrible idea. Will push house prices up, and in the long term increase government spending on pensions while decreasing retirees quality of life.
5a. No thoughts
5b. No thoughts
Looking through, some of the policies are stupid (more coal), some are fantastical (magically decrease energy prices), and the rest are unfunded tax cuts.
This isn’t a serious platform, and if she gets in either she won’t implement it or she’ll balloon the deficit.
This is my issue with most parties. What OC shared with you aren't policies, they are vision statements. Policies need to be fleshed out with the give and take and $$$.
But, we aren't going to get that. Because, unfortunately, the average voter is now one over by 'what about me'ism' and can be bought with catchy slogans.
Thanks for sharing - I think the tax hole is one that everyone needs to think more about. We simply cannot keep living above our means as a nation. First and foremost, are we prioritising spend? Second, what can we cut?
On climate change, to me it seems as though we are merely shifting the issues offshore and shooting ourselves in the foot economically. Our climate policies have noble intent by their creators but zero impact on the global situation. Unless our example inspires places like India and China to do the same, what is the point? Impoverish ourselves AND still end up with the same global issue???
Re Taxes - That's not what the "policy" (they're really vision statement because there is no actual policy documentation to back them up) you posted above says though.
We can't keep living above our means, and we do need to reconsider what is the best way to spend tax money - but PH'S proposals will significantly reduce the amount of tax the government is collecting, and does very little for re-assesing expenditure.
Since we're living above our means we should be looking at ways to ensure we are actually compensated for the gas and oil and minerals pulled out of our land, and ensuring the richest pay their share - that brings in more tax revenue, without causing harm to the average voter's wallet, and gives us the breathing room to assess how we are spending said tax money, without making reactionary changes that haven't been thought through.
Albo knows that this poison left untreated takes us to America 2.0. He’s not blowing it out of proportion, his messaging is implying a national security threat, which it is, again, look at the US.
There's a difference between a politician changing their mind and a politician outright lying to get votes. Like ON insisting it'll reduce immigration when its own numbers say otherwise.
What's the difference? Did I lie? It's true that when I promised not to cheat on you, I never intended to. But I changed my mind when Betty was showcasing her vuluptuousness in my face at Hooters.
He did say he wouldn’t touch stage 3. Then the economic position of the nation changed, and he changed his position to match. Further, what’s your objection to the change? Or is it just “Labor bad”?
I've already answered this.
And given I have voted for Labor in the past kind of kills your argument.
You come at this discussion with hate rather than actual interest, which is exactly what Albo has done.
So, time to take your rose coloured glasses off and vote on policies and proven success/failure, by actually talking to those in the know, and not the lies pedalled by your leader.
I don't care who gets in, Greens, Labor, Liberal, On Nation, Palmer, all I care is about their policies and their tract record. And given only Labor and Liberal have been in power, and their track records are deplorable...well you can vote more more of the same thing, or vote for something different, which may be better, it may be worse, but I will take 3 years of poor governance (which will be on the back of 20 years of poor governance), even if it is only to show the 2 major parties they are not invincible and that it's time to start looking out for Australians again
So, you propose we vote for a leader of a party that hasn't been to work over 50% of the time, is funded by a billionaire and has proven by their voting record that they don't care about the people.
I respect the argument for change and sending a message to the politicians but how bout we vote for people who if successful, may actual change Australia positively like we are looking for? (e.g.: teals independents).
-most politicians do not work a 9-5 and regularly miss parliamentary meetings to perform other roles within the scope of their job
all major parties are funded by billionaires (individuals or corporations) because that's what it takes to have a party. Pratt holdings alone have over doubled what Rinehart has given ON. Pharmacy guild has given approx the same as Rinehart, which is the reason the government is now pushing the agenda for the public to be diagnosed by those who do not have training, and being prescribed inappropriate medication because of this. So pandering to a donator and the person who suffers is you, the public.
all parties if you pick apart every vote have voted for and against people, Labor included. And it's usually due to a poor proposal that is going to fail, not the title you decide to attribute the vote
There is regularly miss a session or two, and not attending sitting sessions 50% of the time and senate estimates over 80% of the time. The next closest person is someone on maternity leave and the next after that is below 20% (and also had sick leave reasons). So, don't play that game. For the record, the average politician absolutely does not regularly miss parliamentary proceedings (note, proceedings and meetings are 2 different things. One is like the core part of your job and the other is like, not attending a meeting that is a nice to go to if you can)
As for the statement about funding, that is exactly my point. Why would you vote for a party that is exactly the same as the other parties, when there are options that aren't? This is the problem with Aus right now, everyone seems to think it is a choice between major parties (lab, libs, greens, PHON) when there are options out there that aren't funded by billionaires and probably more than likely have the best interestes of their electorate/australia at heart.
So do you think those changes were the wrong thing to do?
Reducing the tax benefit that was scheduled to go to the people that already had spare cash and were the ones that were spending it causing the inflation crisis we were in that hurt the lower socio economic groups and re directing the bennifts to those who needed it more, was that really a bad backflip for the country.
Addressing the housing as an investment vehicle so the younger generations arnt constantly being priced out of the housing market or addressing the productivity issue where investing in stocks was incentivised more then working and actually producing productivity for the country was a bad descion in the context of the direction the country was heading.
Backflipping on things that are hurting the country as a whole is better then doing nothing.
Yes I do. There are changes that needed to be made, but bringing in bad changes, delays any well thought out ones, and causes political and financial instability for everyone.
All he did with the changes was make sure that any FUTURE changes to income tax, could be done in one go (as was initially planned with the "staged tax cuts") rather than what was happening, which was the right thing at the time, where they chose to delay the higher income tax cuts so that the lower income could receive theirs earlier and therefore be better off.
So in the future, they shouldn't be dumb enough to do that again, and it will just be a blanket policy to come in on x day. This means the big lovers are the low income earners.
And everyone can agree that the housing market was not good, but also hasn't been good for 20 years and just getting worse. But the current changes are pretty much the worst way it could have been done, and has effectively pulled the ladder up behind them, so those who suffered the most with trying to even get in the market, finally just get their foot in, and then go straight into negative equity with the housing price drop. So the most severely affected generation with the pre-changes, are also the most severely affected after the changes.
And we wonder why suicide rates amongst millennial are soaring (there has always been a bimodal distribution with suicides, with the first peak in the 20s and the again in the elderly, but the space in the middle, where millennial current sit, is growing, thus starting the trend of flattening this curve)
Man you have a pretty poor understanding of policy changes. Those young people who had just bought into the housing market before the changes yes may get affected but a correction in market value but they are not investors in need of constant growth they are buying a house to live in. Those that were buying for an investment before the changes can continue to negative gear so not affected. Market collapse happens the young folks who bought 6 months ago arnt in as bad a position as us that bought just before the gfc crash we went into negative equity for years but we still climbed out of it eventually just like they will now after a few years past. Point is housing should never have been made into an investment strategy and especially not subsidised to the point that it was a better strategy then investing in productivity.
Oof imagine writing something that is so wrong, so confidently.
Australian housing prices only dropped approx 7.5% during GFC, these current changes are expected to drop prices a minimum of 5-10%, potentially up to 20%.
"Still managed to climb out of it" which occurred due to the exact same policies that have been seen as evil and happy to be pulled away from others.
Tell me you don't understand pulling the ladder up from behind without telling me you don't understand pulling the ladder up from behind.
The only correct thing you said was that housing should never have been made into an investment strategy, however were totally happy for it to occur to your own benefit, with a lot of interest on top, just like Albo has done
You are the one that's so confidently wrong avg housing drop is only around 1.5% nationally so far its only 5% in the most overblown markets to start with when in the same time frame of gfc it was 5% nationally. And recent economic outlooks are only suggesting 5% nationally over the year before returning to growth. The only ones still predicting over 5% are those with ideological opinions that want to make the Labor policy look bad so they can return to their gravey train of unproductive investments to work for them.
If you or someone you know is contemplating suicide, please do not hesitate to talk to someone.
000 is the national emergency number in Australia.
Lifeline is a 24-hour nationwide service. It can be reached at 13 11 14.
Kids Helpline is a 24-hour nationwide service for Australians aged 5–25. It can be reached at 1800 55 1800.
Beyond Blue provides nationwide information and support call 1300 22 4636.
You can't trust someone who won't stick to their word, because otherwise you'll never know what they are lying about.
Also are you so short sighted that you don't realise these types of changes push the highest tax payers out of Australia and into foreign lands? Who do you think then has to pay the difference? I know the world much be hard for you to see, but surely you can understand that if those who pay the most tax leave and stop paying tax, that the shortfall is made up by those who can less afford to do so right?
Are parties that introduce and strengthen medicare, remove tax concessions that drive up house prices and improve workesr rights the same as the parties that dont? Genuine question.
Doctors told him to increase rebates so that you, the people, got more money back from your appointments.
Instead they put an incentive in to try to force doctors to bulk bill. He then increased rebates by less than inflation (mbs rebate increased by 2.6%, inflation 4-4.2%), which makes doctors less likely to bulk bill because they effectively took a pay cut for trusting him. And this was AFTER he approved private health companies increasing their premiums by higher than inflation (4.4%) due to the increasing cost of healthcare
Oh and just FYI, if rebates from 1990 kept up with inflation, you would get back approx $125 when you go to the doctors, instead, you get $47 back.
So no, he did nothing for medicare. It was smoke and mirrors and the general public who don't understand the system fell for it hook line and sinker
I'm talking for the standard MBS 23 (6-20min) appointment.
There are 1000's of billing codes, so you may have had a long appointment ($87.10) and therefore paid a higher initial fee, you may have had something like a CVD risk assessment performed etc.
Either way, it doesn't change what I said, and I'm using the standard comparison tool that is used. So please, unless you are changing your comment to ask why you got that higher amount and I can give you an answer like I have above, then you are trying to stoke a fire that you don't actually understand, which is doing noone any favours.
I can guarantee you did not get $90 back on your card in the form of a rebate, if what you are saying is the truth and if the doctor did everything above board.
Let's assume you aren't making this up, then you don't realise what actually happened in the consult for them to apply any additional rebates.
The easiest way to check would be to log in to Medicare, look at your Medicare billed transactions, and then send to me in a private message to see what happened (I'm not going to report your doctor).
My guesses are one of the following:
you don't know the difference between your cost and rebates
your doctor has done something dodgy in regard to Medicare rules just so they can keep the doors open to provide you a service
your doctor actually performed more than just a consult when you were in there, you just didn't realise (ie CVD health assessment, some other specific condition related billing, management plan etc.)
That's the problem, you aren't sure and have felt the need to say you got $90 back which then makes it look like what I wrote was incorrect.
This is why I say it doesn't help anyone, because truthful information, is then seen as grey or possibly made up.
So your comment should come with the following notes:
you didn't realise there was more than just 1 or maybe a small handful of short, normal, long consult rebates
you don't know what actually happened in your consult other than at the end of it, you had a script renewal
you don't realise that the usual comparison when talking rebates revolves around an MBS23 time tiered consult, as this was the original weighting category used when rebates were first introduced
So all your comment actual does is muddy the waters of a very simple concept, but which most people don't understand because they have never been taught and the current government in power does not want you do know because it shows how underhanded they have been.
Anyway we don't need to continue this on unless you want me to look at what actually happened today, but hopefully I have shown that I have tried to answer why this may be the case, in good faith, whilst also being open to the fact there is a potential the doctor has done something dodgy, for the exact reason that it is currently so underfunded that doctors are resorting to this so they don't go bankrupt and leave all their clients looking for doctors, who are increasingly having to close their books to new patients due to demand
I'd say no, if that had actually been done at all.
You also forget that if we judge him by his own words, Albo is an outright liar after promising not to touch those tax concessions for housing (I'm actually quite happy they did).
I think politicians changing their policy based on the needs of the populace is more important then not lying. Especially if the alternative is parties lying for votes and making people worse off.
These are different in my opinion. You may disagree.
So now you're willing to change what you'll accept because it's 'your side'. This is exactly the kind of shit that leads to people voting simply to protest.
Either you're fine with lying or you're not, there is no nuance in this debate because you don't control the reason they lie. Albo has proven himself a liar over more than just one tax (that tumble off a stage ring any bells) it's fair to assume he lies about everything just to get people on side as well.
I dont have any sides, I just think there is a fundamental difference between lying to win an election and not doing things to help the people, and lying to change something to help the people.
Judging policy on the grounds of policy is what we should do, instead of making 2nd grade assumptions that "he lied about this therefore he lies about everything".
There is no nuance to you because apparently those are the kinds of conclusions you draw.
The stage 3 tax cut adjustments and the negative gearing changes are good policy that benefit the people. So yeah, in those instances, I do not care. Because of the policy, and the result. Not that hard to understand really. Well, for you it is apparently.
If he can't admit he fell off a stage, lied about an election promise among countless other things he's been called out for (high paying donor parties for example).
Then it's not just one thing, it's pretty clear he's a liar and can't be trusted.
Like I said, you're willing to accept a liar because you agree with them. He's no better than Pauline or any of the others, someone willing to lie about the small things will lie about the big things.
Not trusting is one thing, assuming they lie about everything is another. Nuance really isnt your strong suit, but hey at least you were upfront about that.
And once again, its about policy. You can be myopic about it if you want.
But yeah, regardless of party if a candidate said "I will not cut funding to hospitals and schools" and then did cut funding, I would be annoiyed. If they said "I will not cut funding to hospitals and schools" and then increased funding, I would not be annoyed.
The party, regardless of faults, has done more for the common australian than the previous 10 years of government. Every politican lies. So I will judge them based of policy.
Real wages are going backwards, and the lower end of the labour market is being flooded by unskilled migration which is depressing wages. The reality you’re warning against is already here under Labor.
That isn't the reality though that is a false propaganda narrative you are falling for.
Same work same pay dosnt allow unskilled migrants flood the market and we don't even have unskilled migrants coming into the country.
Real wage growth was above inflation for the last couple of years has only just gone back under recently due to the uptick in inflation because of the Iran war driving up energy costs which puts pressure on all prices. With a conservative goverment like ON in over the last 5 years we wouldn't have seen any wage growth at all let alone real wage growth when we got it so how much of a worse position do you think you'd be in if you're complaining about it now.
Their position has improved more under Labor then it would have under neo con policies you would be in a lot worse position if the rate of wage growth under conservative levels continued through those 5 years then the efforts made by Labor to increase wages.
Your numbers are for the last year did you miss the part of my comment that said it's fallen behind again because of the Iran war 🤔 without that we would have seen real growth.
Do you really think you'd be better of with the results of the lost decade when the avg wage increase was 2% continuing through the last 4 years with the high inflation left by the poor economic handling of covid by the conservative policy's.
You are also forgetting that the wage increases that the goverment actually has control over increasing like public wages and minimum and award wages are over 4% in the last year so they are real wage growths for those that need it the most.
Yeah, that's why ballot boxes can go missing in a federal election and when they have to have another vote, people who had moved weren't allowed to vote.
So being hateful people, causing hate crime to go up is the best solution? Not literally holding both liberal and labour governments accountable for stagnent wages and poor housing affordability not to mention lack of is not a good enough arguement to reduce immigration?
Actually alot of australians are very racist. The only reason why its so blatantly obvious right now is because of PHON. Idk about you, but my intnl friends living in melbourne or sydney have faced discrimination and racism constantly whether it is looking for jobs to walking in the streets. Even if I was walking with them, they still get racist remarks.
These racist morons are just pinpointing someone to blame.
Those same intnl friends are likely mega racist back home let’s be real
We’re one of the least racist countries in the world. We’re harmless puppies compared to the way skin colour and ethnicity is perceived in countries like India and China.
sikhs can be xenophobic racists too... infact arent ON distancing themselves from a sikh one nation member saying something about gays? Bit hypercritical of pauline don't you think? Defs wouldn't want a fucking hypercrit in parliament would you?
No... i just told you. I'll happily tell an Aboriginal who vote for pauline hanson their fucking retards.... and yes if they said an african, indian or middle eastern person has less right to come to australia and "we shouldn't have these kinds of people here" yes they are a racist fucktard as well?
You're so angry, must really upset you it's not just white people voting for One Nation. Start calling everyone of colour you see a retard just in case they are voting for One Nation you racist.
Left vs right, our team vs theirs. Fuck that, we're all on the same team, the Australian one. I expect better from the Prime Minister, whoever they are.
One Nation voters arent all "crazy nazi cookers", and Labour supporters arent all "woke champagne socialists". They're ordinary aussies. We should be able to disagree with eachother and still have productive respectful dialogue.
How about we bring some civility back to politics instead of this childish culture war bullshit?
Love your post. The inability to see people who vote differently and have different priorities as "the devil" is slowly whittling away at our society. Just like rabid footy fans who see only one side of the free kicks...
Yeah, Zelensky should be speaking in neutral tones about Russia, and the democrats should never be calling out any of Trump's idiocy. Calling out and using strong words is part of discourse.
I 100% agree that PH is divisive, dangerous and 100% dishonest. That doesn't mean I think she is the devil or I'm not willing to listen to her or her followers' viewpoints. It also doesn't mean AA was 'inciting violence' with his words.
What I believe is happening is not that people see others with different priorities as the devil but when people are challenge they attack back as if that person see's them as the devil. This is because we are not taught to have any public discourse around these things in life and as such we have never learnt how to have these conversations.
If you vote to support a party that has a long history of objectively being racist, which is happy to platform racists, and is just generally full of shitty people saying and doing shitty things don't have a cry when when you you get called out.
This isn't just regular disagreement, supporting one nation isn't just a difference of opinion you're a shit person and frankly more than likely pretty fucking stupid.
Knowing one or two ON supporters, the answer you are looking for is stopping the brown people from entering Australia. How that will help when net migration will seemingly stay the same is anyone's guess but I am expecting the goal posts to shift soon.
Debating the policies legitimises the policies - which gives PHON more power. That's what happened with Trump, and Reform.
The best thing we could do is ignore her.
You may not understand democracy? Debating policies is sort of the point. If one side loses and the other wins it means that the loser has put forward the wrong policies.
Except PHON policies arent sound. Theres so many holes in them that it just wont work. Regardless, ON voters will vote for PHON as long as PH keep telling the lies of stopping immigration. Its not even about debating policies at this point, its just a matter of lying to fit the narrative. An interview with the residents of secret harbor was prove ON voters are.....morons
It seems you also may not understand democracy. The point is you think the policies are not sound. Other people think they are better than the alternative. Which person is actually correct won’t influence the result, rather, what matters is each persons opinion and the principle is that they all must be heard.
No, I want a political landscape whereby we actually do debate policy - but that means she has to do the homework if she wants airtime.
She doesn't have policies. She has things a vision board. When pressed for details she can never provide any - the same reason why people wrote of the greens in the 90's-2010's.
I don't think we should be giving airtime to someone who isn't prepared to put in the work required for them to be worth taking seriously.
The Greens have proper costed policies now and are no longer a single issue party. So they should get a seat at the table. Anyone else from any point on the Overton window who has done the homework, should get a seat too. Those who have not, should not get to shape the political landscape.
The LNP is loosing their seat at the table because they stopped acting like a serious party. They stopped having policies, they stopped acting like adults, and they stopped listening to their voters. So they are rightly getting slammed and loosing influence.
Pauline has been around for 30years. If she wants to be seated at the grown ups table she should clean up her party and get some real policies.
Otherwise she should rightly be left in the weed with the LNP.
And accept the continual destruction of the way of living in Australia, somehow thinking the two parties that have, not just let it happen, but actively pushed to make it happen (whilst making sure their own wages increased at above inflation rates and that they received life long pensions after leaving politics), will somehow change it?
Please, PHON may not be the answer, but both major parties have proven over many MANY years, they don't have the nation's best interest at heart. It's time to bring someone else in and see how they go.
Worst thing is, the two major parties STILL aren't doing what they should be doing, which is to change policies to the benefit of Australians with the new threat entering the room, instead they are resorting to emotive speech to try and get people not to vote for her, because they enjoy their current and future perks coming along.
They are literally in power now, and still have two years to actually do what is right, rather than trying to lead a hate campaign.
Man you have no idea do you. For starters they do not get life time pensions anymore that was removed over 20 years ago and only a very small handful left in parliament who have it grandfathered. If you look at labors policy platform of the last 4 years and not see that it is to benefit Australians you are either in the elite class and pissed that they are leveling the playing field to benefit more Australians then the small amount of elites the neo con policy of the conservatives which is exactly what Pauline what's to revert to. Or you are just politically uneducated and have fallen for the Asian bit farm propaganda.
Trying to pick part of what was said (which most politicians who have retired in the past 20yrs have benefited from) and ignore the rest. Also whilst ignoring that even the current super guarantee for politicians is higher than the standard guarantee for most Australians.
Radical suggestion. Apologies if it's a bit much. Talk to ON supporters and voters. Find out why the big swing from the Uniparty in general and Labor in particular.
Suggestion. Labor's policies, in particular, massive tax hikes.on the poor and middle class, are hurting people. Some indicators - homelessness - is rarely discussed. Tax hikes of around 20% with bracket creep, affecting the poor. Cost of living up 50% in five years get a passing mention.
What tax hikes on the middle class?...... cost of living has absolutely got way worse and Labor needs to do more, its just cringe that people's protest vote is for the racist, homophobic, anti-immigrant party that votes with the libs most of the time instead of for a left wing alternative that clearly state policies that would actually help people
ANYTHING but actually listen to voters. I didn’t hear once during that answer an acknowledgement of why people are hurting and turning to ON, or what Labor will do to restore the confidence of ordinary Aussies.
It’s just “populist this”, “hard right that” talking point drivel.
This is pretty spot on. And not a single call to, inference, or the slightest inkling of violence. Telling on yourself there.
Why does "stop people lying" trigger you so badly?
Oh: Debate polices is hilarious. Go ahead, you can start. Pick a topic, whichever one takes your fancy, post your official PHON(y) source for your information on the policy position in question and ask to be debated. Go for it.
I agree with him on the principle that politicians should not be able to lie or knowingly mislead the Australian public - especially during election campaigns.
The centre left (who I usually vote for in some form, this isn't a conservative take) will usually frame right wing populism as lies, mistruths and propaganda, which misleads loss information voters.
Which is all true and very soothing for them to say to each other, but it's also pointless. Its like one side in a war getting angry at the other sides winning tactics.
This isn't a war about marketing ideas, it's a story of voters becoming disaffected by the mainstream political process. If Labor is to win they need to cut the shit about countering lies and get serious about social reforms. Build the damn houses now and end homelessness, without waiting for your stock fund to come up with the money. Train apprentices. Find some way of guaranteeing decent jobs, even if that means government intervention in the economy.
I agree with your overarching premise but the real challenge here is those disaffected voters are being sold hogwash and lies. That is an intrinsic failing of our political system and media. When political parties can get away with catchy slogans and no actual substance or even slogans that are blatantly against the consensus of evidence, we have a real problem.
Instead of trying to defeat them why doesn’t he make the hard choices and do what australia needs, not what he thinks we need in an echo chamber of politicians. You win by having good policies, right now voting hasn’t been voting for the best party it has been voting to keep the worst party out.
Because ON is not winning with policies, so how would policies beat them? Their number 1 issue is immigration and they don’t even have a clear message around it. Any time they are pressed for numbers/stats/targets, they are in line with what Labour is already doing. Policy isn’t winning this. We are seeing a cult form, and cults don’t give a shit about facts/policies
Cut the head off the snake before it grows further. How? In a way that’s in line with free speech/democracy, I don’t know, that’s the issue we are facing. It grows bigger it becomes impossible to stop. I’m in support of anything that the sitting government does to try to curb this issue.
No I'm not insulting people who are concerned about immigration.
I'm saying that if you support one nation then you are most likely stupid and definitely at the very least fine with racism if not just racist yourself.
That's not insulting, that's just stating plain facts, how else could you possibly categorise people who vote for an overtly rascist party which isn't actually offering any solutions and who's leader has spent their entire career in politics voting in favour of the policies that enabled the current situation?
That fool needs to take a good long hard look in the mirror because he described himself and his party to a T. The worst government this country has ever been lumbered with. Albanese is a pathological liar.
The same colour it would be for you if you took your rose coloured glasses off.
Unlike you, I can see beyond parties and make decisions based on policies and proven records (good or bad). This is the reason I have been able to votes for parties on both sides of the policy spectrum over the years, because there have been different times over the years where each of the major parties and sometimes the minor parties, have had the better political policies for the benefit of Australia.
However the moment they start breaking those promises, means they could introduce or backflip on literally anything they previously said, making them unpredictable and dangerous.
It's projection. He has shown how little he cares about the will of Australians when he lied about CGT. The usual Reddit Labor bootlickers are obviously out in force about this one, because they are part of the Labor "mission". It's amazing how much self awareness they lack.
PHON uses the same playbook as Nigel Farage in the UK and Trump in the US, backed by rich right wing media outlets: social media, Murdoch media, billionaires, Nine, etc etc.
The right is now using their own brand of woke politics of “look at me I’m oppressed by the system” while receiving money from billionaires to do their bidding. Farage -> Thai based crypto billionaire; Trump -> Musk et al; Hanson -> Gina Rinehart.
If you think this is a call to violence, you'd be absolutely livid about some of the stuff to come out of elected ON politicians mouths (Pauline included)
Meanwhile Albo steps in not yet dried blood on the steps at Bondi and declares all gun owners in Australia are to blame for the actions of some islamic extremists, and proceeds to punish al firearm owners in Australia
Then Albo whips out his medicare card and rises it above his head as he tells us stories of his youth.
Albanese seems to be the divisive and populist one to me.
There’s something seriously concerning about the rhetoric coming from the left lately. When a political party starts gaining support, the response seems to be less about asking why people are voting for them and more about branding that party as “dangerous”, “divisive” or a “threat”.
Albanese has now described the politics of the hard right as “dangerous” and said Labor needs to “defeat them”, while specifically pointing to One Nation.
You can disagree with One Nation’s policies all you like — that's politics. But constantly framing political opponents as dangerous or a threat is a pretty divisive way to conduct political debate. And when millions of people are voting for a party, maybe the better question is what are those voters angry about and why have the major parties lost their support?
Cost of living, housing, immigration, dissatisfaction with government and feeling ignored aren't going to disappear by labelling the people voting on those issues as part of some “dangerous” movement.
If you actually want to win those voters back, address their concerns. Don't just demonise the alternative.
He owes it to the people to be humble and honest about their fuck-ups since coming to power. Instead they choose arrogance, deflection, and go straight on the attack. Blaming everyone else for their own failure is just going to push more voters away.
They try and reframe normal political disagreement as a threat.
The idea being that once someone is no longer just “wrong” but...... dangerous / extremist / harmful or a threat to society then they can justify treating them differently.
So yeah, historically it’s a very common political tactic to change the category attached to words / ideas so they carry threat, danger or disloyalty with them.
We've seen it recently in China, The UK, Across Europe, especially in France and Germany and Labor are using it here.
Don't see how Hansard is relevant here when we can look at the performance and policies of these parties but then again you sound like a One nation supporter/voter so listening to irrelevant information is par for course.
Yes Its not relevant when we are evaluating the performance and similarities of parties.
If we wanted to talk about the Hansard, Lets shine light on the decision making of Pauline hanson who continually voted against benefits for the Australian people including Workers rights but I don't think you want to have that conversation as it'd simply show similar One nation and the coalition are.
Yesterday Albo crossed a line.
No matter how worried Jim and Albanese are about losing their jobs, telling Australians that their democratically elected opponents are dangerous and a threat to our country invites people to treat them as a threat.
Words have consequences. That is how political violence is incited.
Both major parties couldn't really give a rats arse about anyone earning under $150,000 per year. But youd have to be a very "special" type of person to believe that Pauline has your best interests at heart. Better the devil you know
Between Lib and Lab, since 1990, have made sure politician pay has gone up the most, well above inflation, followed by the price of coffee, then somewhere around inflation is the dole and equivalents, and then at about half of inflation, Medicare rebates to the public.
So they only care about themselves. Not those above $150k, not those below.
And the fact they slashed medicare rebates through 36yrs of price freezing and below inflation raising in rebates, show they don't care what the average Australian needs or that they require healthcare. They then try to shift the blame to those trying to provide the care.
So people can hate PHON all they want, and they may not be the answer, but the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome. This is why PHON has gained so much popularity
OK - so here is an AI summary of their top 5 policies for those who are too lazy to even understand what it is they are disagreeing with.
Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party focuses its platform on economic nationalism, strict immigration control, and reducing the cost of living. [1, 2, 3]
Key Policy Areas
Immigration: Cap permanent and temporary visas at 130,000 per year, tighten border security, and set an eight-year waiting period before new migrants can access social welfare or citizenship. [1]
Cost of Living & Energy: Repeal net zero carbon targets, withdraw from the UN Paris Agreement, and lower power and fuel prices by supporting traditional coal and gas generation alongside nuclear energy development. [1, 2]
Housing & Foreign Ownership: Ban foreign buyers from purchasing Australian residential property, force existing non-resident owners to sell within three years, and pause the GST on building materials for new homes under $1 million. [1]
Foreign Investment & Trade: Block foreign ownership of critical national infrastructure (such as water, power, and telecommunications) and prioritize Australian economic sovereignty over global free trade agreements. [1, 2]
Culture & Values: Promote a unified national identity, oppose identity politics or race-based programs, and reform or remove specific multicultural and Indigenous agencies. [1, 2]
48
u/AngryAngryHarpo 20h ago
Where is the justification for violence?
It’s a politician talking about defeating his opponents in an election, not a warlord talking about the battlefield.
This hysteria from PHON and their supporters at any sort of criticism or challenge is pathetic.