Politics How does the left get its political mojo back and win power?

[Patrick Bullet]

You imagine incorrectly.

I would be extremely happy if the left never won another election, but that won’t happen.

I merely am trying to suggest, albeit very sarcastically, that the realities of life may alter some of the young left leaners politics over time and they may find themselves different people with different needs as they age. They may even vote differently.

Several pages of this forum give a reasonably adequate explanation of why the left is currently losing elections in this country. We got 7 pages of intellectual debate absolutely and utterly unrelated to the OP’s question. They might stand a chance if they could stay on topic and talk a lot more about issues that people gave a s**t about.

Okay, so it was all sarcasm; you had me there! In any case, I hope my reply to your post might be relevant to the people you were satirising.

 

[Lenny153]

Anyone who doesn't want serious action on climate change is either selfish or stupid, or simply doesn't care enough to do solid research. I thought the right liked it when you tell it like it is, I thought that was Pauline Hanson's selling point. Do they only like you telling it like it is when it supports their existing viewpoints?


This is called debate. I find it ironic you complain about namecalling when the right routinely bandy about terms like "snowflake" for anyone they think is easily offended. When and where have you been called a racist or sexist when you weren't being either of those?


Cancel culture applies to people who are openly racist or sexist and unrepentant. Don't worry, there will always be a place for those people on Sky News or The Herald Sun.


The same ABC that routinely grills Labor and Greens politicians thoroughly on 7.30 and the like? The same Channel 10 that gave Bolt a FTA platform for a long time? The same Fairfax that is run by Peter Costello? Seriously have a read of The Age sometime, it's gone so far to the right under Costello's leadership. The Guardian is a niche source, it has a far lower audience in Australia than any established newspaper. Pretty much all of print media and talkback radio are the preserve of the right now.


Tax cuts, increased health funding, harsh border policies and matching the migration cap are policies that only appeal to the "far left types"? Okay then.


Except they did, you're wrong.

Comparing Coalition and Labor income tax plans

Income tax cuts are a central issue in the looming federal election campaign. So what are both parties offering? How much will you get? And when will you see the money?

www.abc.net.au

If those people see themselves as the upper end of town, they're sadly deluded. The upper end of town are on millions per year and know how to minimise their tax payments.


Why indeed? They are incredibly self-serving, expecting extra handouts from the government, the burden of which will fall squarely on the young as it gets added to the national debt. I suppose I shouldn't expect more from a generation that benefited from free higher education and cheap house prices, but peddles a narrative that they dragged themselves up by the bootstraps like their parents' generation did. Funny how the right are against handouts when it's for the young and poor, but are more than happy to give them to the old and wealthy.


Crazy? Multiple countries are doing this, many of which have more aggressive targets than us, like Spain, France, Norway, the UK, Mexico and even India. They all have plans to ban electric cars totally when Labor only agreed to a 50% target. The NRMA wants us to ban electric car sales totally by 2030, I suppose they're a far left organisation too? Honda are stopping electric car production by 2023, I suppose they're also crazy and far left?


The reason economists couldn't cost it is because it didn't have a price on carbon. That's an example of Labor listening to the electorate. The Coalition's policy was essentially to do nothing, which is far more destructive to the nation than Labor's policies ever could be.


I don't think you're actually paying attention to young people. Many more of them care about serious climate change action and acceptance than you think. But they're well outnumbered by elder generations thanks to our aging population.


The party of corporate tax cuts? Yeah, sure. I have an alternative hypothesis: the average worker has become much older, and older people are generally more conservative.

It is people like you and your stubborn refusal to admit the left have got anything wrong other than not explaining their policies or having things go against them that mean the left will not win any major election in the foreseeable future.

Not that I care, I want the left to keep losing (something they are making an art form of lately).

Keep attacking alternative views and being so dogmatic in your own. It’s worked so well for the left lately.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I agree that this is the truth, but that message isn't cutting through. Why is it not cutting through? How has the left lost this argument when the facts are apparently so clear?

As I said in my first post in this thread, corporations can afford the best PR teams and the finest techniques that psychology has to offer. This didn't happen overnight, it's the result of decades of careful message management by corporations and businessmen to get the average person to sympathise with their interests. They pander to the ego of the person in the street, make them feel important and use whatever judgements or prejudices those people already had as a vehicle to gain trust (in rhetoric only and not in practice. Corporatist parties routinely talk a big game about being hard on immigration, but they won't actually stop the flow of new customers and wage competition that their masters continuously demand). They have performed the same trick over and over on different issues such as tax cuts for wealthy people, tax cuts for corporations, the elimination of regulations and any serious action on climate change. The only time this message failed was with Workchoices, and they learned the lesson well to pick their battles carefully.

There are a lot of assumptions embedded in this excerpt about how a large subset of the population thinks about things. I am going to assume you're speaking of the baby boomer generation, but let me know if this is not correct.

To some extent certainly, but the mentality I am referring to does not cover the whole generation, nor is it confined to that generation only. Plenty of people in Gen X had similar advantages and the same mentality. Plenty in both generations were pandered to by Howard and Costello, lionised as "Aussie battlers" and humanised as "mum and dad investors". And of course there are plenty of "born to rule" snobs amongst the young too.

I'd like to know how certain you are that boomers think in the way you described. Do you think all boomers think in these ways? If not, roughly what percentage of them would you estimate do think in this way?

No.

And that would be a hard thing to estimate without looking at polling data that measures why people vote the way they do. I would think the number would be sizeable since many people benefited from the sorts of advantages I mentioned that no longer exist.

Yes, and that older generation votes too. They need to be persuaded to vote left, if the left is ever to win an election while these people are still alive. The only alternatives I can think of is a coup, revolution, or change to the constitution that results in a fundamental change to how the system works.

No need to be dramatic, nobody is suggesting coups or constitutional changes. As I mentioned in my first post in this thread, the likeliest way is to wait for the older generations to die off, but in the short to medium term, I believe it will involve demonstrating how the right exist to do the bidding of the very rich and powerful at the expense of the middle class. The narrative has to be changed to what directly benefits older voters, because they've shown as a collective group that they simply don't care about issues like housing affordability or the national debt or climate change if it affects their investments or government handouts. This is what I mean when I say they're collectively a self-interested group, not an empathetic one. (I think the young have their own issues with empathy in some ways, but that's a different story).

It won't be easy due to how corporations have controlled public discourse, but I believe it is possible. The other thing I would do is to pick a more inspiring leader than Shorten. Trudeau and Ardern have shown it is possible, although they both are from far more progressive countries than Australia.

A third possibility that warrants consideration is that the ground has shifted. You're not the only person in recent times to openly suspect that I am not left-wing, and yet I think my views and voting patterns have remained relatively stable.

Again, I don't know you or your mind, but from what I've seen I would consider you a reasonable centrist that I could find an accord with on many issues. I do think the ground has shifted, particularly socially.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

It is people like you and your stubborn refusal to admit the left have got anything wrong other than not explaining their policies or having things go against them that mean the left will not win any major election in the foreseeable future.

Not that I care, I want the left to keep losing (something they are making an art form of lately).

Keep attacking alternative views and being so dogmatic in your own. It’s worked so well for the left lately.

Thanks! With that response from the likes of you, I know I'm doing something right. When Donald Trump loses the popular vote once again (if he even makes it to the next election), do message or tag me.

 

[Rettolalia]

Do you think someone should 'attack' Christianity any time they 'attack' Islam?

You mean you don’t already do that?

#cm86kingofwhataboutism

 

[Lenny153]

Thanks! With that response from the likes of you, I know I'm doing something right. When Donald Trump loses the popular vote once again (if he even makes it to the next election), do message or tag me.

Keep spinning things.

Can I ask. What hurt more? Trump getting elected or the ScoMo special in May of this year?

I hope you are prepared for another 4 years of trump and have some strategies to handle it this time that aren’t complete meltdowns.

 

[owen87]

This is what I mean when I say they're collectively a self-interested group, not an empathetic one. (I think the young have their own issues with empathy in some ways, but that's a different story).

Most people are self-interested with their voting, it's just that young people don't have much in the way of assets to be concerned about. When they have more things of their own, watch them vote in such a way that preserves those things to their benefit (or perceived benefit at least).

If you want to sell climate change action to the average person, tell them their power bills will go down by switching to renewables and watch everyone jump on-board the climate change train.

Young people care about affordability of housing because they don't have one, as soon as you actually own a property though, you want it to go up in value. There's competing interests here between property owners and non-property owners. Not necessarily due to age, though it's increasingly likely that you'll be a property owner as you get older.

 

[Lenny153]

Most people are self-interested with their voting, it's just that young people don't have much in the way of assets to be concerned about. When they have more things of their own, watch them vote in such a way that preserves those things to their benefit.

If you want to sell climate change action to the average person, tell them their power bills will go down by switching to renewables and watch everyone jump on-board the climate change train.

Young people care about affordability of housing because they don't have one, as soon as you actually own a property though, you want it to go up in value. There's competing interests here between property owners and non-property owners. Not necessarily due to age, though it's increasingly likely that you'll be a property owner as you get older.

Problem is bills won’t go down with renewables, only up. So that’s an imaginary hypothetical that will never play out.

 

[Seeds]

Child is dressed. Adults are dressed, however oddly = no harm. Child is naked and/or adults naked = harmful, even if the adults mean it as harmless and innocent. It's just not a good look I don't think.

But what about child naked and adults are dressed.

You arent providing a reason at the moment other then naked is wrong.

 

[Patrick Bullet]

I'm open to hearing alternative explanations if you have them. The evidence in favour of anthropogenic climate change being a serious threat to humanity is overwhelming.

I am happy to float some hypotheticals and will do so in a later post if you would like that, but for now would you be kind enough to indulge me in this thought experiment first? Can you think of any alternative explanations at all? It doesn't matter if they sound a bit ridiculous or implausible; I'm just keen for you to test the limits of the assumptions first.

Does the truth hurt? Some people are definitely racist or sexist or bigoted, and get very angry when you point this out. It's as though calling out intolerance is a greater sin than actually being intolerant.

Do you think there definitely exist some people who are snowflakes, cucks, or SJWs (in the pejorative sense)? If so, should they also be labeled as such?

Also, when it comes to words like racism, sexism, and bigoted, do you think we all have a shared and agreed understanding about the inclusion criteria?
Let me throw some examples at you, which I hope will help make my question clearer.
1. It's late at night in Northbridge (if you don't know Perth, think Fortutiude Valley in Brissy), I am walking home when I see a black guy down the road in front of me. I decide to turn down a different street because I am a little worried he might mug or accost me. Is that racism? Am I a racist if I do that? Do I need to be told the truth?
2. It's late at night in Northbridge, I am walking home and a woman is walking 20m in front of me, by herself. She reaslises there is a man walking in the same direction as her (i.e., me) and she is a little worried he might be a rapist, so she starts walking faster and towards a busier road. Is that sexism? Is she a sexist if she does that? Does she need to be told the truth?
I have to say that I don't think the answer is clearly yes or no in either scenario. Maybe you don't agree, but even if you do, I imagine others might not. I am sure we could come up with plenty of other examples where it's not crystal clear. If I am right about that (and I concede I might not be but humor me for the moment), whose version of 'truth' should we rely on? By who's criteria should we decide what is bigoted vs. not? Yours? Mine? Someone else's?

Personally, I am fearful that people's 'bigot' radars are overly sensitive, and this makes people play the 'bigot card' far too early in a conversation. Once a person plays the 'bigot card', it's hard to resuscitate a conversation. For me, using words like bigot, racist, sexist should be the 'nuclear' option; better not played at all.

The difference is you seem to be someone with an open mind who is willing to listen, think and ask questions. In my experience people like you are nowhere near as common as those who already have their minds made up, follow their political tribe and won't budge. I regularly engage on Facebook with an acquaintance from country Queensland who is extremely set in his ways. I regularly share evidence of the case for climate change from reputable sources and his response is always to call it a "hoax" and say that I'm "gullible" to believe in this conspiracy. I have little hope of ever changing his mind, in my opinion. And I think a large number of people on the internet in general and BF SRP in particular are as rigid in their stances. Trump and his ilk repeatedly use insults and right-wing equivalents to the above terms and seem to do just fine, once again this is a silly double standard.

It's very kind of you to say that I have an open mind. Truthfully, if this convo was happening twelve months ago, you might have encountered a different version of me. In fact, I'd probably just be clicking 'like' on all of the lefties' posts. But a few things have made me stop and question a few things, and the biggest one was the realisation that the left keeps losing. The notion of Trump being POTUS would have been hysterical 10 years ago, yet it has happened! That should have shocked the system, but it still took me 3 extra years to work out something is very wrong with how the conversation is going.

I am hopeful that you're getting something out of our conversation too. I am not sure what that 'something' would be exactly, but if nothing else, I do hope it has been enjoyable. It has been enjoyable for me because you too have shown a willingness to consider my seemingly endless and inane (but truly purposeful) questions, and I am grateful for that. Few people have the time or patience.

You are right, though, it can be frustrating when people seem completely wedded to their views, and those views are clearly and objectively flawed (e.g., flat-earthers). But, that story I posted earlier about the KKK conversion guy makes me truly believe that it is possible to bring anybody back from anywhere through conversation. Whether it's worth the time invested is another matter of course, but if you truly care about your country QLD friend, then it might be worth persisting, but maybe trying some different tactics.

People have the right to complain. Nobody is owed a platform, and that is a very different thing to the right to free speech. I view authoritarianism as being about government power and the force of law rather than about criticism, the ability of people to call for deplatforming or the decisions of private companies. The reality is that in a capitalist economy, people vote with their feet and companies will take stances in their economic interests. Cancel culture only has an effect if it has enough popular support to overcome any losses. Do you view the recent decision of McDonald's to cut ties with their Mildura franchisee over #toostrongforyoukaren to be cancel culture? If not, why?

I think to address this, it might be helpful if I stated what I mean by cancel culture because I realise just now we haven't defined it. When I say cancel culture, I actually don't have a good clear definition, but I'll run by some situations that might help:
- Staging a protest against a guest speaker at a university (or anywhere really) - NOT cancel culture, not authoritarian, just free speech at work
- Protesters preventing the guest speaker from actually speaking (e.g., by making the environment physically unsafe, blocking the entrances to the venue, or by regularly interrupting the discussion/speech) - IS cancel culture, and a form of authoritarianism, suppression of free speech
- Participating in a campaign (usually on social media) to try to arrange the sacking of an individual from an organisation based on a political/ideological opinion they have expressed publicly - IS cancel culture, authoritarian, suppression of free speech
- Actually sacking somebody for expressing their political/ideological opinions publicly - this to me is super complicated and depends on many 'third variables'. Happy to flesh this out if anyone's interested, but for now I'd say that I don't particularly feel comfortable about it.
Is that enough to make things clearer? If not, I'll try to come up with more (or you can throw some more examples at me).

So, let me entertain the one you threw at me. I think that this is a complex one and I don't have a clear answer. It looks from the story as though Karen was being a bit of a douche. I don't actually have a problem with somebody asking questions generally about Aboriginal identity/Aboriginal-ness of people. (if you're interested, I'll write separately about why I think that particular issue is complicated and why I don't think it's necessarily racist to ask the question; just let me know) But I think the way they went about having that conversation was always going to be counterproductive. That conversation was doomed to be explosive, and it exploded.
Does it warrant Karen and co from losing their franchises? Legally, it would depend on the terms of the contract they signed, but morally, it doesn't sit well with me. One reason it doesn't sit well with me is that the explanation given by McDonald's is not clear at all. At least, not from the Guardian piece:
"[McD's described the comments in the video as] unacceptable”, saying they “do not reflect the beliefs of the company as an inclusive workplace for our employees and customers."
What are the "beliefs of the company"? How can a company even have beliefs? A company is not a sentient being with the capacity for consciousness or cognition. What does "inclusive workplace" mean? Inclusive of what?
How do I take Mc D's statement and lay out a list of behaviours that are grounds for firing?
Ultimately, I am okay with what happened because Mc D's is a private organisation and they can do what they want, within legal bounds, but I don't think moral justice was done.

I don't recall ever personally stating it doesn't happen on either side, but perhaps others of the left do, I won't dispute that.

Than you for clarifying your position here.

I really doubt "cancel culture" is a big enough issue to be affecting elections anyway. I think the personal charisma of leaders is the biggest factor, policies second, and "cancel culture" is mostly a talking point for the sorts of ideological warriors who talk about politics on internet forums.

Maybe. Maybe not. We probably need real data to be sure, and I am not sure if that exists yet.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Keep spinning things.

Can I ask. What hurt more? Trump getting elected or the ScoMo special in May of this year?

I hope you are prepared for another 4 years of trump and have some strategies to handle it this time that aren’t complete meltdowns.

Meltdown? I was cheering for Trump! I wanted them to have an absolute meme of a leader who will screw them over horribly. That's also why I wanted Brexit to happen and Bojo to win. I also benefit financially from Scummo's tax policies even if I'd never vote for him, and he's rapidly showing the country what a buffoon he is. So even if I thought Shorten would be better for the nation, despite having the all the charm and charisma of a head of lettuce, I'm finding plenty to be content with. It's just a pity innocent people lost their lives as a result of the Liberal party cutting fire services funding.

I don't worry about the short term impacts of individual elections anyway, I look at the long term. The Liberal Party has already come to the table on gay marriage, and as climate change worsens, even they will follow in time, kicking and screaming all the while.

 

[Borisdog]

Most people are self-interested with their voting, it's just that young people don't have much in the way of assets to be concerned about. When they have more things of their own, watch them vote in such a way that preserves those things to their benefit (or perceived benefit at least).

If you want to sell climate change action to the average person, tell them their power bills will go down by switching to renewables and watch everyone jump on-board the climate change train.

Young people care about affordability of housing because they don't have one, as soon as you actually own a property though, you want it to go up in value. There's competing interests here between property owners and non-property owners. Not necessarily due to age, though it's increasingly likely that you'll be a property owner as you get older.

Yep, and that's where I was going with my sarcasm a few posts back.

People, generally, are way less altruistic as they age.

I loved the bleating from the Labor voters about the rich people's franking credits.

EVERY. SINGLE. TAXPAYER. would've copped it there. If you've got a super fund you were going to lose money. Unless of course your super fund if 100% cash or fixed interest. In which case there really isn't any hope for you anyway.

Hopefully enough people with super funds realised that at the ballot box.

 

[Lenny153]

Meltdown? I was cheering for Trump! I wanted them to have an absolute meme of a leader who will screw them over horribly. That's also why I wanted Brexit to happen and Bojo to win. I also benefit financially from Scummo's tax policies even if I'd never vote for him, and he's rapidly showing the country what a buffoon he is. So even if I thought Shorten would be better for the nation, despite having the all the charm and charisma of a head of lettuce, I'm finding plenty to be content with. It's just a pity innocent people lost their lives as a result of the Liberal party cutting fire services funding.

I don't worry about the short term impacts of individual elections anyway, I look at the long term. The Liberal Party has already come to the table on gay marriage, and as climate change worsens, even they will follow in time, kicking and screaming all the while.

Keep spinning. I guess you have to do that when you are always on the losing side.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I loved the bleating from the Labor voters about the rich people's franking credits.

EVERY. SINGLE. TAXPAYER. would've copped it there. If you've got a super fund you were going to lose money. Unless of course your super fund if 100% cash or fixed interest. In which case there really isn't any hope for you anyway.

You can keep being disingenuous if you like, but the facts are clear, franking credits are largely a rort for rich people and the poor don't benefit much from them. I thought the right were supposed to be against handouts anyway.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Keep spinning. I guess you have to do that when you are always on the losing side.

I'm sorry you have trouble with reading comprehension. Slow down and don't confuse yourself too much.

 

[Patrick Bullet]

Johnny Bananas, I promise not to respond to everything line by line to this one!

To some extent certainly, but the mentality I am referring to does not cover the whole generation, nor is it confined to that generation only. Plenty of people in Gen X had similar advantages and the same mentality. Plenty in both generations were pandered to by Howard and Costello, lionised as "Aussie battlers" and humanised as "mum and dad investors". And of course there are plenty of "born to rule" snobs amongst the young too.

I think you are being authentic when you say this, but do you think your original post conveys this clearly, at least clear enough that your everyday boomer who might be reading it will realise it might not apply to them?
If not your own post, do you think memes like "Ok, boomer" or tropes like "boomers got a free education and a cheap house" that show up in other people's posts sometimes do justice to the complexity and variability within the boomer/X generation? Will these sorts of messages win more votes for the left from the boomers? I personally think they are likely to be counterproductive if anything.

And that would be a hard thing to estimate without looking at polling data that measures why people vote the way they do. I would think the number would be sizeable since many people benefited from the sorts of advantages I mentioned that no longer exist.

Is that the full story for them (i.e., boomers/late X) though? What I am getting at here is that lots of other things no longer exist too, and not of all of those things are good.

No need to be dramatic, nobody is suggesting coups or constitutional changes.

I am glad we agree on that!

As I mentioned in my first post in this thread, the likeliest way is to wait for the older generations to die off, but in the short to medium term, I believe it will involve demonstrating how how the right exist to do the bidding of the very rich and powerful at the expense of the middle class.

Do you truly believe in the bolded? I guess it might depend on what you mean by the right here, but I you mean social conservatives, I'd be very surprised if it were true.

The narrative has to be changed to what directly benefits older voters, because they've shown as a collective group that they simply don't care about issues like housing affordability or the national debt or climate change if it affects their investments or government handouts. This is what I mean when I say they're collectively a self-interested group, not an empathetic one. (I think the young have their own issues with empathy in some ways, but that's a different story).

I think this is a pretty strong assumption. If all you have are voting patterns, then I can see that this is one possible conclusion that could be drawn, but there are many different paths that will lead to the same voting decision. I know a few boomers (mainly parents, and friends' parents), and they care deeply about housing affordability, climate change and so forth. But they also care deeply about not being forced to live on the streets (which is reasonable, IMO), and they had planned their retirements around franking credits. So, with very little time to understand the true implications of Labor's policy (i.e., that it wouldn't have been that bad with a simple adjustment made to their investment portfolios), and being presented with an effective scare campaign, they voted for the safe option. If someone is to tell these people they simply don't care about housing affordability, I'd expect the same reaction that Karen got when she asked "which 1% of you is Aboriginal?" (i.e., "you can GAGF!")

 

[owen87]

People, generally, are way less altruistic as they age.

I'm not sure this is entirely true, it's easy to be altruistic when you have little to nothing to give, and everything to gain.

Young people want things that are just as self serving as older ones, it's just packaged as being altruism driving it.

You can keep being disingenuous if you like, but the facts are clear, franking credits are largely a rort for rich people and the poor don't benefit much from them. I thought the right were supposed to be against handouts anyway.

View attachment 797767

This is distorting statistics. It's like saying giving a tax break to someone paying $100,000 in tax will benefit them more than giving the same percentage break to someone paying $10,000 in tax. It's true, but disingenuous.

 

[Patrick Bullet]

You can keep being disingenuous if you like, but the facts are clear, franking credits are largely a rort for rich people and the poor don't benefit much from them. I thought the right were supposed to be against handouts anyway.

View attachment 797767

I think some caution needs to be applied here. This assumes that nobody changes the structure of their investments after the policy was enacted. What I suspect would have happened is that high dividend corporations like banks would have reduced their dividends substantially, and retained more of the profits to increase the overall value of the shares. People would then sell down small portions of their stocks to generate a regular retirement income. Same net result as the status quo overall.

 

[CM86]

Can anyone help me understand something?

I keep reading about the 'right' winning. And how all the elections have been won by the 'right' and how the 'left' keep melting because they lost.

So why is the 'left' also in such control over the world? Forcing people to do all kinds of things?

How is the gripe that the 'left' are too powerful. While also saying the 'right' are the majority and are in all the positions of power... because of the 'left'.


Is it all a con?

Is it like an employer explaining to his staff that no one will get a bonus this year, because they hired a woman due to diversity quotas. So now all the employees are angry with the woman. Rather than with the employer lying to them and not paying them their bonus?

 

[Borisdog]

You can keep being disingenuous if you like, but the facts are clear, franking credits are largely a rort for rich people and the poor don't benefit much from them. I thought the right were supposed to be against handouts anyway.

And the other 90% weren't going to lose money?

Your thoughts on the top 10% of Australia's taxpayer's paying 45% of the tax?

Those 10% seem to be doing their fair share of handing out.

Personally speaking I think we as a country should be doing WAY more to ensure businesses, all sizes but particularly large multi-nationals, are paying their fair share.

 

[Patrick Bullet]

I just spotted this article today. I think it's worth a read if you're interested in the thread topic:

How to lose friends and influence the security of your nation

When the facts fly in the face of long-held opinions, it takes courage to change your view, but that is what people must do regarding climate change - even when friends and allies desert you.

www.theage.com.au

It's by the guy who wrote the book about the more nefarious elements of China's rising power.

 

[Borisdog]

I think some caution needs to be applied here. This assumes that nobody changes the structure of their investments after the policy was enacted. What I suspect would have happened is that high dividend corporations like banks would have reduced their dividends substantially, and retained more of the profits to increase the overall value of the shares. People would then sell down small portions of their stocks to generate a regular retirement income. Same net result as the status quo overall.

And eventually more people end up on a pension, when they run out of stuff to sell, when they could've been self-funded for way less dollars.

My wife and I are self-funded, she retired 5 years ago and I did in September. I might go back to work for a little while until I reach preservation age ( From a Super viewpoint ) Neither of us sticks our hand out to the government for a single thing, and believe me I've paid my share of tax over the years.

Superannuation is IMO the one and only thing this country has Keating to thank for. To this day I'm amazed no-one took a shot at him.

 

[Lenny153]

Can anyone help me understand something?

I keep reading about the 'right' winning. And how all the elections have been won by the 'right' and how the 'left' keep melting because they lost.

So why is the 'left' also in such control over the world? Forcing people to do all kinds of things?

How is the gripe that the 'left' are too powerful. While also saying the 'right' are the majority and are in all the positions of power... because of the 'left'.


Is it all a con?

Is it like an employer explaining to his staff that no one will get a bonus this year, because they hired a woman due to diversity quotas. So now all the employees are angry with the woman. Rather than with the employer lying to them and not paying them their bonus?

Corporates, media etc are left and have direct influence on our lives at work and what news we have to listen to. This is what we mean when the left control things.

People then rebel against this and vote for centre right parties at the ballot box.

Does that make sense?

 

[owen87]

Corporates, media etc are left and have direct influence on our lives at work and what news we have to listen to. This is what we mean when the left control things.

People then rebel against this and vote for centre right parties at the ballot box.

Does that make sense?

I don't think corporates are at all left; they just pretend to be in order to garner the social credibility it gives them.

Social media however, is driven more by those on the left than the right, so I would argue they then have a disproportionate influence over public discourse. Educators (secondary and tertiary) also tend to lean left, so young people are increasingly heavily influenced by these sources.

There's a whole spectrum, but this whole SJW psuedo-action on various social issues - effectively liking posts and telling people what they can and can't say instead of any meaningful action - is where young people seem to believe they need to be.

 

[Patrick Bullet]

Can anyone help me understand something?

I keep reading about the 'right' winning. And how all the elections have been won by the 'right' and how the 'left' keep melting because they lost.

So why is the 'left' also in such control over the world? Forcing people to do all kinds of things?

How is the gripe that the 'left' are too powerful. While also saying the 'right' are the majority and are in all the positions of power... because of the 'left'.


Is it all a con?

Is it like an employer explaining to his staff that no one will get a bonus this year, because they hired a woman due to diversity quotas. So now all the employees are angry with the woman. Rather than with the employer lying to them and not paying them their bonus?

Corporates, media etc are left and have direct influence on our lives at work and what news we have to listen to. This is what we mean when the left control things.

People then rebel against this and vote for centre right parties at the ballot box.

Does that make sense?

I loved this set of questions from CM86 and the reply from Lenny153! I've been scratching my head too about these matters.

I think you're saying Lenny that the 'fringe' leftist policies are being enacted by non-governmental authoritarian bodies (e.g., large corporations' HR departments, Universities, Silicon Valley), and people didn't necessarily vote for the policies, but got them anyway in the places that matter (e.g., work, the world of social media). But, because corporations, universities, and so forth are not democratic, the only recourse that people who want those policies to stop have is the political vote, and so they vote against the left. So, in other words, the left-wing parties are being punished for the policies of other organisations, even when their own policies are quite mainstream. If that's true, that's a tough one to unravel!
Very thought-provoking!