*Hits cameraman with a ball*

Oh haha got him; got him. What a shot.

*Cameraman starts bleeding*

Shooks hands with cameraman and offer him a pint of beer to make up for the incident.

Peter Dutton seemed like a decent guy there. I hope he didn't behave because the election season is underway.

Cheers for the cameraman anyway!

The video:

https://youtube.com/shorts/QAOe8s867ao?feature=shared

The debate was pretty much a non-event. 44 Albo/35 Dutton/21 undecided.

Annabel Crab asked if that 21% "were undecided, or possibly watching something on their phones."

Sky news is somewhat dumfounded, looking for anything to support the conservatives... "Albanese edges out Dutton, but fails to win over majority of voters at leaders’ debate"

Again, a hung parliament looks the most likely outcome.

Anyway, no one was watching.

Anyway, no one was watching. — Banno

Do you think Aussies lost political attitudes? Or did you simply become more neutral than ever?

I don't know... Given the current state of politics, I believe a lack of interest in politics is understandable. [edited to make more sense to my reply to Banno]

I don't know... Given the current state of politics, I believe a lack of interest in politics is understandable. — javi2541997

The argument works the other way too. Given what's at stake and how bad some leaders are, this should radicalise the voters. Arguably people's votes have never been more important.

Most interest in politics is little more than team sport, point scoring and empty wins.

I vote most elections and it's either vote Labor or for the most left-wing independent going. I still subscribe to the view that the rich rule the world (badly) and need to be opposed as far as practicable.

Arguably the biggest asset to the Murdochs and Musks of this world is voter apathy. It really helps the fascists if people think all candidates are hopeless and all are corrupt.

Agree. I’m not overly impressed with Albanese, but overall the Labor cabinet seems far more capable to me than the alternative.

Interesting, Tom. It is true that it also makes sense if we see it in the other way.

I knew you were a Labour voter when I started sharing ideas and views with you in this thread. I believe you also already told me. So, it is clear that you will vote for a left-wing approach.

Although apathetic voters can help billionaires like Musk, I still believe that people lost confidence in politicians for a lot of reasons. I think politics should be a boring job again and not this kind of circus controlled by the current showman. It is time for discussing the important matter in the parliament for hours and not writing a "tweet" or saying a weird thing because media will cover it.

I'm not sure if I'm to blame for my own apathy, but I have only voted in European elections in recent years. I often vote in my local council's elections. However, I believe my vote is wasted. It's intriguing how you perceive it, Tom: it's better to vote than not. You believe in the system, which is significant.

Do you think Aussies lost political attitudes? Or did you simply become more neutral than ever? — javi2541997

Neither. Rather it's the two main parties who have become more neutral than ever... folk want politicians who will act, which is something the Lib/Nats and ALP have become incapable of doing.

Yes, that's the problem. All the emphasis these days is on economic performance, neither party will propose anything that will obviously negatively affect the constituents' bottom line.

@Banno and also

I just found on Google this interesting analysis (Australian voters may not be deeply polarised) that is relevant to what we discussed this week. The most 'meh' election you have witnessed.

The new research demonstrates: Australian voters are not deeply polarised or highly enthusiastic; instead, they are both uncertain and ambivalent. To put it bluntly, we are the anti-America. Where, in the US, people are toxically polarised and unable to see politics through any other prism than their own partisan lens, in Australia our passions are lower but so are our biases. — Patricia Karvelas - ABC AU.

The fact that the polarisation in your country is relatively lower than in many other countries, I believe that means something positive: that Aussie people didn't get sick from the poison of politics. I don't confuse apathy with ambivalence here. It is important because key challenges (such as climate change) would not be affected by polarisation. It will be worthwhile to follow the election season of this beautiful country, where people appear to be mature and cautious. We have much to learn from you here in Spain.

That’s pretty right. Australians generally have a pretty low tolerance for bullshit (which is why we have a lot of trouble understanding how Trump got voted in). We believe in ‘the fair go’. And also I think our Westminster-style parliamentary democracy (which we have in common with Britain) is preferable to the presidential republic model of the States.

And also I think our Westminster-style parliamentary democracy (which we have in common with Britain) is preferable to the presidential republic model of the States. — Wayfarer

I also like that parliamentary style, where the debates and legislation are serious. Not a show in which the showman shouts bollocks while his political group members applaud or the opposition throws acid. This is the toxic foggy ambience in which some of us are.

I don’t hear much about Spanish politics, other than that people were furious over the flood responses, and that the Spanish PM appears a charismatic fellow.

The less that you hear about the politics in my country, the better. Our chaotic way of managing a state might make you feel dizzy. We still have a 'royal family', which causes a lot of problems. Catalonia has been an important territorial crisis, despite having abandoned their independence movement, etc.

At least we are kind; the weather is great and the food is lovely. :razz:

not to mention the many great aspects of Spanish culture, like Flamenco.



(OK he’s Brazilian but the music is pure Spanish.)

The consensus in the Australian media I follow is that Albanese is streets ahead of Dutton, who has tried and failed to play the fear-monger card. His party is still spending money on ‘who is Peter Dutton’ ads - three weeks out from election day. Sure sign of a missed boat. He’s had to backflip on some policies, others (like his arm-waving nuclear energy policy) are vague and not yet costed - inexcusable, considering the stakes.

I do wonder if Australia’s dislike of Donald Trump is actually providing a bit of a boost for Labor’s fortunes. I think it’s probably driving the electorate a little to the left of where it might otherwise be.

so who’s the next Linerl leader.


They got nothin’.

There have been articles on that, too - how Chalmers is a natural successor to Albo, but the only possibility they can see for the Libs is Angus Taylor, who’s awfully like a private-school prefect (speaking from experience.)

Michaela Cash.


“Look here! we found a woman”

This is very helpful for those (like me) who are not Australian but are interested in the next elections. Well, the world is large, and it is interesting to learn from others.

State of the states: six politics experts explain the key seats across the country.

New South Wales: How the 2025 federal election will play out in NSW is difficult to predict for two reasons: 1) The first is the recent redistribution which, as ABC analyst Antony Green’s pendulum shows, has redefined many electoral boundaries.
2) The second is the number of crossbench MPs.

Queensland: For decades we said Queensland was a key “battleground” in federal elections where seats north of the Tweed so often held the keys to The Lodge. But, for the past 15 years, federal elections have seen little movement in Queensland except, of course, for 2022 when the Greens won three seats.

South Australia: South Australia is rarely a key battleground in federal elections, and only comprises ten electoral seats. -- Wow! Just only that seats?

Tasmania: There are two main seats to watch in Tasmania. The large, rural seat of Lyons is one of the most marginal in the country. On the surface, Franklin – Australia’s only non-contiguous electorate – looks like a safe Labor seat. Another point of interest is who will pick up the votes won by the Jaquie Lambie Network (JLN) in 2022. The JLN is not running candidates following a spectacular implosion at state level – and where those voters find a home could be crucial, particularly in Lyons.

Be careful with the Tasmanian devil, mates!



Victoria: Victoria is shaping up to be a crucial state for the major parties. Several seats are held by the Labor and coalition parties with a margin of less than 5%. -- Folks will sing 'VICTORIA' after winning the seat.

Western Australia: The five WA seats to watch are Curtin, Bullwinkel, Forrest, Pearce and Tangney. -- Beautiful beaches, sunsets and that pink smoothy called 'Lake Hillier'. It takes me more than 20 hours to get there. So bad. Why are you that far from the rest of the world?

SO both major parties have policies that will drive up house prices.

And this is how they fix housing affordability.

Fucksake.

Housing affordability is a worldwide problem, Banno. :wink:

Nobody anywhere knows how to stop it.

Australia should rethink its relationship with America because alliance is becoming obeisance. — Alan Kohler

Alan Kohler.

Australia's problems are to a large part the result of a policy introduced in the nineties that allows rent to be negatively geared.

If an investor buys a property and the rental income is less than the cost of maintaining it (including mortgage interest), they make a net loss. Under negative gearing, this loss can be deducted from the investor's other income.

This increased demand from investors, driving up property prices and excluding first-home buyers from the market.

Capital gains on investment properties are taxed at only 50% if held for more than a year. Combined with negative gearing, this makes speculative investment extremely attractive.

This has been central to the increase in wealth inequity seen here over the last twenty years.

From what aI have been able to work out, this is very different to the situation in Spain.

About 80% of the total dollar value of negative gearing deductions is claimed by people in the top 30% of income earners.

Too hard for the major parties to deal with.

The Greens have a different approach.

Nobody anywhere knows how to stop it. — javi2541997

Are you sure about that?

From what aI have been able to work out, this is very different to the situation in Spain. — Banno

We could have different issues, but the problems are the same: speculation and exclusion of first-home buyers.

Investors also have tax income benefits if they invest in real estate. Capital gains on investment properties are taxed only at 25% if you are an enterprise and just only 10% if you are a fund. For this reason, most of the buildings in central Madrid and Barcelona are owned by funds, not persons.

Apart from being a cheap investment, our government no longer constructs public housing. I believe they are concerned that most Spaniards will be unable to afford the loans. So the soil is free to be mined and speculated on.

Notice that the income of the average Spaniard is €1,500 or even less. The price of leasing a normal house is around €1,200, and the loans are around €700 per month. As you can see, property prices cut into Spaniards' ability to save.

A different context, yes. But we end up in the same problems as you: Housing affordability.

Oh, and of course that come from the 1990s. We also had neoliberalism here.

A simple response, here, would be removal of capital gains and negative gearing.

Why are home prices so expensive in Australia? Consider that the four major banks make a large part of their income from mortgages. Therefore to maximise profit they will lend as much as safely possible. The market has no restrictions on foreign buyers,which increases the pool of buyers. Australia is seen as a safe haven in terms of economic opportiunity and political stability. So it stands to reason that house prices will be driven up by these factors. I think the measures should all be supply-side - there's a desparate need to build a great many more dwellings. But then there are also large labour shortages both skilled and unskilled. Many building companies have collapsed due to supply-chain and inflation issues. Labor talks the talk about building more homes, but their much-vaunted program has built none so far (according to the Opposition.) Here is Labor's policy announcement from a couple of weeks back. Economists don't seem to rate the Opposition policy very highly.

Nuclear energy - I still say it's bad for this to have become a partisan political issue. The Government, no matter which party, should seriously invest in acquiring skills and resources in nuclear energy construction, even without necessarily committing to build reactors. The industry is changing rapidly and it's quite possible that in a decade the whole picture will be different. There needs to be investment in it.

f I were you I would limit purchases from the US due to carbon emissions involved in shipping. — frank

Banno might have not read yr post but at least others did and the comment that came out of that, albeit 22 days later, is " We'll follow your example because you are in Banno's shoes (i.e. close enough to be Banno) and watch you secure a full knowledge of which of your purchases coming from the US you will limit, setting an example to us who wish to follow your suggestion."
Purchase of any thing tangible involves carbon emissions no matter how far it travels and how or where it is created. Wouldn't you agree?
Just a suggestion and acknowledgement that your posts are examined and cause reaction(s).

encouraging smile

See
https://www.productivity.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-11/20241114_NSW-PEC-report-Review-of-housing-supply-challenges-and-policy-options-for-New-South-Wales.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/How-to-tackle-Australias-housing-challenge-Grattan-Institute-submission.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Negative gearing and capital gains tax discount remain the largest factors influencing house price. Next is zoning and planning restrictions. Migration is hardly noticeable - a 1% increase population du to in migration leads to a 1% increase in housing demand.

RBA (2016) estimated that foreign demand may add a few percentage points to dwelling prices in select areas - Box Hill or Chatswood - but not across the country. FIRB approvals fell from $72 billion in 2015–16 to under $10 billion by 2021.

The Libs are full of shit in this regard.

The present US administration has shown that it cannot be trusted. — Banno

Agreed.

One of the unsaid (at least frequently and appropriately enough) comments that should qualify this whole world wide anti US rant.
Is it the country and its people who can't be trusted? Or the crumbs that have been swept to the top of the political system by the failings within that system? And, please don't quote the more than 50% of the voters story/excuse, we all know how unrepresentative democrazies can be of their populations' interests and wishes.
Thanks for the opening, Banno.

belated smile