The Elephant in The Room: Labour's Male Problem

[Saint]

Actually, no. Per capita, we spend slightly more on women than men for both education and health. Mostly on account of the fact that your average woman is more likely to finish highschool, obtain a tertiary qualification, birth a baby, and live longer than your average man.

That said, the difference is trivial and obviously characterising health and education policy as gendered is stupid.

I would argue the birthing costs should be attributed to the child and probably bring that balance back quite a bit. Maybe road safety spending is a male thing because men crash cars more.

Same with sport. Foreign affairs is mostly men. Defence is mostly men. More men work than women, so maybe all Govt spending should just cease?

 

[Heisenberg_]

Labour dont fight for men anymore the majority of the workforce (may change to be equal but still the majority). Look at what labour proposes

More education funding---> majority female dominated field
More healthcare funding ----> majority female dominated field

Renewable energy funding--> a slight majority female (full of environmentalist)
Science --> male although shifting rapidly
Hospitality ---> female field

Do labour even support construction any more? Only support comes from unions who are increasingly losing support since the 1900s

Liberals

Oil and gas funding ---> male dominated field
Mining funding ---> male dominated field

Construction/trades funding ---> male field (this what LNP is slowly tapping into)
Mental health funding ---> female

So while LNP have a women problem labour has a men problem. I mean when you push education and healthcare and climate funding as a priority your are backhanding males.

That might just be the stupidest thing I’ve ever read

 

[Caesar]

That might just be the stupidest thing I’ve ever read

You don’t spend enough time here

 

[Heisenberg_]

You don’t spend enough time here

Fair call

 

[Seeds]

Labour dont fight for men anymore the majority of the workforce (may change to be equal but still the majority). Look at what labour proposes

More education funding---> majority female dominated field
More healthcare funding ----> majority female dominated field

Renewable energy funding--> a slight majority female (full of environmentalist)
Science --> male although shifting rapidly
Hospitality ---> female field

Do labour even support construction any more? Only support comes from unions who are increasingly losing support since the 1900s

Liberals

Oil and gas funding ---> male dominated field
Mining funding ---> male dominated field

Construction/trades funding ---> male field (this what LNP is slowly tapping into)
Mental health funding ---> female

So while LNP have a women problem labour has a men problem. I mean when you push education and healthcare and climate funding as a priority your are backhanding males.

Are you a giant socialist? Why the f*** should government be giving money to mining, construction or trades. Take your socialist propoganda back to the 1940s where it belongs.

 

[Seeds]

Both parties abandoned the average Joe working man years ago!

The 1990s wants its catch phrase back. As does the 1970s and 1940s. And lets not talk about the 1930s.

 

[Seeds]

How is it 2020, and the 2nd major political party still can't be correctly listed.

It's Labor ffs.

Because the party spelled their own name wrong and refuse to fix it. Anti australian to ignore the u.

 

[Donakebab]

The irony of this thread springing back to life right now...

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Because the party spelled their own name wrong and refuse to fix it. Anti australian to ignore the u.

You never tire of being wrong do you? Even wiki has the explanation:

There was originally no standardised spelling of the party's name, with "Labor" and "Labour" both in common usage. According to Ross McMullin, who wrote an official history of the Labor Party, the title page of the proceedings of Federal Conference used the spelling "Labor" in 1902, "Labour" in 1905 and 1908, and then "Labor" from 1912 onwards.[8] In 1908, James Catts put forward a motion at Federal Conference that "the name of the party be the Australian Labour Party", which was carried by 22 votes to two. A separate motion recommending state branches to adopt the name was defeated. There was no uniformity of party names until 1918, when Federal Conference resolved that state branches should adopt the name "Australian Labor Party", now spelled without a u. Each state branch had previously used a different name, due to their different origins.[9][a]

Despite the ALP officially adopting the spelling without a u, it took decades for the official spelling to achieve widespread acceptance.[12]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party#cite_note-17 According to McMullin, "the way the spelling of 'Labor Party' was consolidated had more to do with the chap who ended up being in charge of printing the federal conference report than any other reason".[16] Some sources have attributed the official choice of "Labor" to influence from King O'Malley, who was born in the United States and was reputedly an advocate of spelling reform; the spelling without a u is the standard form in American English.[17][18] It has been suggested that the adoption of the spelling without a u "signified one of the ALP's earliest attempts at modernisation", and served the purpose of differentiating the party from the Australian labour movement as a whole and distinguishing it from other British Empire labour parties. The decision to include the word "Australian" in the party's name, rather than just "Labour Party" as in the United Kingdom, has been attributed to "the greater importance of nationalism for the founders of the colonial parties".[19]

 

[Pie eyed]

#ParlimentaryLiberalRapistsThirdEnquiry