top 4 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 11 points 2 months ago

"historic" as in backwards

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago
    [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    After all this bullshit of Albo chucking a fossil fuel lobbyists into the seat and going to billionaire fund-raiser functions where they pay for access to politicians, it's really disheartening to see any of the Liberals, One Nation, or Labor get the seat.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    I wonder what this implies for the Victorian state election coming up. Normally it looks like a drover’s-dog election, where anyone could beat the unpopular government, and the opposition could cash in by front-loading controversial policies and claiming a mandate. If the likely beneficiary of this is the Trumpist kleptofascist party typically favoured by chronically lead-poisoned boomers who take horse paste for their wind turbine syndrome, and whom no-one who’s not cooked would have taken seriously as a potential government, would they still be in love to reap the benefit of the state of affairs, or could Labor make a miraculous recovery just by the alternatives being worse?

  • source
  • 8 comments in c/perth@aussie.zone view that post
    [–] [S] 9 points 2 months ago

    Thumping defeat for Labor and Liberals.

    I really want to know if Labor are going to take the lesson that an allegedly cocaine snorting, mafia connected candidate looks more appealing than the Woodside candidate who runs at the first sign of hard questions over gas.

    Like it's ridiculous, it's not like her main opponent was a Greens candidate. The ON candidate is probably worse on corruption and fossil fuel support, in that situation why run the comparisons write themselves.


    But in reality I think debate was really on things like red bins and a general discontent which she couldn't counter by being an engaging or exciting candidate on real issues.

    So, question, is Labor going to learn that backroom staffers and lobbyists are far from the flavour of the day and they need to start finding real community candidates?

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    Labor deserve it for running a Woodside candidate. Pity they voted for Gina's candidate instead of Greens, independents or even the Libs as lesser evils. Australian elections were never more buyable than they are today with targetted social media. You can't half arse this stuff and run a bullshit candidate unless you can back it up with undeclared money and foreign influence. Hanging on to seats is going to be fucking hard work from here on unless you have X and Meta on your side. Labor need to pull their finger out and make some changes.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago*

    Labor need to pull their finger out and make some changes.

    Spoiler, they won't :(

    The only thing that will save us from this mess is a mass left-wing political movement to counter the rise of the right.

    The Labor Party are not the party of workers, and haven't been for many, many decades. We can rely on them only to tinker, and to placate capital at the expense of the workers.

    Luckily, preferential voting exists, so there's literally no downside to abandoning them in favour of parties that align with left-wing values.

    I'm probably preaching to the choir, but please join your local Socialists branch, or the Greens if you're not yet convinced capitalism in unreformable. And get everyone and their dog involved.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    They have been buy-able for a whilst, Libs and Labour just thought they had the upper handed monopoly and the candidates stopped 'looking' like they care in favor of the 'just rent and be glad you peasant'. This result is almost the same argument that is seen in USA and UK. Economics and class snobbery is hitting hard on the lower incomes, so social media is pushing the purchased self righteous, but useful idiots to make it even worse. Libs and Labour have helped create the mess, showing big money that they can buy public sway, the difference is that money is now sidestepping them playing dirty. They cant and wont object or offer resistance.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    I confess to being surprised. Not about yesterday's result, though I would have been a few weeks ago. I was at a Fathers' day thingy last week and my Brother-in-law and my dad were essentially talking about One Nation as a viable choice. Dad has been a bolted-on Labor guy with every 80's stereotype those voters came with (battler, literal blue collar, lifetime CFMEU member, union shop steward - the whole works) for my entire life. Dad coloured my understanding of politics as a child (Fraser bad/Whitlam good).

    So for him to be shit-talking Labor and talking about One Nation as something viable - yeah I was really taken aback. He doom-scrolls Facebook all the time, so I know where this has come from. If he can be shucked from Labor boat and turned, I bet loads of others can be as well.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Facebook is for sure the worst. The glimpses of the shit my olds are reading on there is the most toxic and dishonest slop.

    What I can't understand is why it's so hard for people to double check the information they're considering, check the context a bit before locking in the point of view presented.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Critical thought and awareness of how misinformation and algorithms target people seems to be falling off a cliff. Is this result not a demonstration of exactly that?

    Of course I'm not suggesting people should vote for corporation backed parties, they're demonstrated that they'll always pander to donors. Surely there were actual candidates with strong and responsible policies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 months ago

    Yeah, I didn't pay too close attention to the actual policies driving the campaigns, not interested in it enough. There was something I kept hearing about red bins, but that could be 'woKErAti climate wars' LGA edition. So probably not policy exactly.

    I don't think awareness of disinformation and individualised algorithmic targeting were ever really widely known or understood enough for it to 'drop off a cliff', it seems like people are completely uninterested in understanding these systems of manipulative influence. At least from where I'm standing it seems that way.

  • source
  • parent