Why do workers vote Liberal?

[NSWCROW]

I don't think anyone on the dole votes liberal. (And this is coming from a liberal voter who believes that welfare should be increased).

Possible but you're gonna need to produce some digits.

 

[Not Important]

Because people actually like their employers*

And the idea of bashing one's employer is met with hatred in the 21st century. Also giving money to their employers is seen positively
because people don't ******* hate their employers

*Could be because they get paid well or they have a open relationship with them or they are have flexible work hours

so you vote liberal because you like your employer. this is the reason some sort of comprehension test should be mandatory before you are eligible to vote.

 

[NSWCROW]

so you vote liberal because you like your employer. this is the reason some sought of comprehension test should be mandatory before you are eligible to vote.

That's a level of bootlicking i've not encountered in decades.

 

[Not Important]

That's a level of bootlicking i've not encountered in decades.

it's seriously concerning when you consider that's all that matters. ignorance of that sort is the reason why conservatives screw workers yet they still vote for 'em. the cigar smoking rare french bordeaux drinking sniffers at the melbourne club must guffaw at how easy it is to dupe them.

 

[Christopher Buttersnip]

Why do we even let poor people vote if they are just going to vote the wrong way?

The sort of unthinking riposte you'd expect from a heedless voter. The question was about workers who get royally screwed by the Libs as I've put in the OP. The Libs are a party who operate for and on behalf of the plutocracy.

 

[tandino]

The sort of unthinking riposte you'd expect from a heedless voter. The question was about workers who get royally screwed by the Libs as I've put in the OP. The Libs are a party who operate for and on behalf of the plutocracy.

How sanctimonious do you have to be to think you know the best interests of a whole cohort of people better than themselves. There are more intelligent ways of framing that question.

If these people are natural centre-left voters, and are so easily led, and yet Labor can't win their vote, then the problem lies with Labor doesn't it?

 

[FireKrakouer]

Possible but you're gonna need to produce some digits.

Honest question m8, do you not believe that we, like most 2 party countries, are not living under the "illusion of choice"? Ie both major parties support the same puppet masters?

 

[NSWCROW]

Honest question m8, do you not believe that we, like most 2 party countries, are not living under the "illusion of choice"? Ie both major parties support the same puppet masters?

So no digits then ?

 

[FireKrakouer]

So no digits then ?

I'm confused as to what digits you're after man

 

[NSWCROW]

I'm confused as to what digits you're after man

FFS scroll up nimrod !!

 

[Johnny Bananas]

If these people are natural centre-left voters, and are so easily led, and yet Labor can't win their vote, then the problem lies with Labor doesn't it?

I don't think they are natural centre-left voters, or at least they haven't been since they stopped joining unions en masse. I think most humans (in all cultures) are conservative by nature, fearful of change and easily convinced to mistrust anyone or anything that's different to what they're familiar with. That's why immigration and race relations have always been pretty fertile ground for scaremongering by politicians ever since Chinese people set foot on the Victorian goldfields, and this is the case in many other countries, even non-Western ones. And any politician willing to scaremonger over that issue has a decent chance of getting elected, at least as long as they use a dog whistle rather than overt xenophobia.

Of course, it helps when the media are largely serving conservative interests. You could argue the media were at least somewhat neutral until 2010, when the shellacking Gillard received in papers from pillar to post made it very clear who the media batted for. I don't think it's got any better since then when you look at how they're excusing Scummo's f**k-ups.

A lot of fault does lie with Labor though. The leaders they've put up have been pretty uninspiring since Rudd. It's like there's something about the top job that completely kills their natural charisma.

 

[FireKrakouer]

I don't think they are natural centre-left voters, or at least they haven't been since they stopped joining unions en masse. I think most humans (in all cultures) are conservative by nature, fearful of change and easily convinced to mistrust anyone or anything that's different to what they're familiar with. That's why immigration and race relations have always been pretty fertile ground for scaremongering by politicians ever since Chinese people set foot on the Victorian goldfields, and this is the case in many other countries, even non-Western ones. And any politician willing to scaremonger over that issue has a decent chance of getting elected, at least as long as they use a dog whistle rather than overt xenophobia.

Of course, it helps when the media are largely serving conservative interests. You could argue the media were at least somewhat until 2010, when the shellacking Gillard received in papers from pillar to post made it very clear who the media batted for. I don't think it's got any better since then when you look at how they're excusing Scummo's f**k-ups.

A lot of fault does lie with Labor though. The leaders they've put up have been pretty uninspiring since Rudd. It's like there's something about the top job that completely kills their natural charisma.

I've heard a quote somewhere that rings true. Anyone who becomes a world leader must be a psychopath. That's not necessarily a slur per se. But anyone who chooses to run a country must be a sociopath to an extent. They need to be able to sleep at night knowing that every decision they make can cause deaths.

I've seen the Bush and Obama families laughing together and sharing lollies. They sleep like a log at night after giving the death sentence to hundreds of thousands of middle easterners.

 

[Rabbitpig]

I'm a worker, no Uni degree. I usually vote Labor, as I did in the upper house election held last month in Tassie. I voted liberals for the lower house though.
My reasons.
I've pretty much lived in rural Tassie all my life. A lot of my friend are farm hands, tradies, they are manual labourers. I worry for their future as the only viable way Labor could have formed government was an alliance with the greens.
The greens down here are against beef farming, salmon farms, trout farms, dairy farms. They're against opening up wilderness areas for tourism, they've shut down forestry and want to shut down industries in Bellbay and in the North West. They're against mining, to be honest, they're pretty much against Every single job a rural person might aspire to.
So call me uneducated or stupid or redneck, by those are MY reasons.
I trust Labor Much more in relation to workers rights, however I see the Liberals providing more jobs in rural areas.

 

[random260]

I mean look at Labor gritting it's teeth at gas, coal, mining, fracking, banking, and even farming jobs. Their base hates them. Pro worker my ass. They would defund and get rid of all those industries if they could or hide it in the mirage of retraining. We see through your bs

 

[Johnny Bananas]

The greens down here are against beef farming, salmon farms, trout farms, dairy farms.

Are they? The policy I see here suggests providing grants and subsidies to farmers to change their farming practices without having to reduce their stocking levels.

Policy | Tasmanian Greens MPs

The Greens have a plan to bring down the cost of living and housing, tackle the health crisis, protect our unique environment, and much more.

tasmps.greens.org.au

They're against opening up wilderness areas for tourism

It's a little more nuanced than that. Their policies seem to suggest they're okay with more walking trails and tourist attractions in areas that aren't highly sensitive ecologically. They just want tourism development to be focused on ways that increase the ecological health of the area instead of detracting from it. Can't do that if there are few regulations on what can be built in wilderness areas.

Policy | Tasmanian Greens MPs

The Greens have a plan to bring down the cost of living and housing, tackle the health crisis, protect our unique environment, and much more.

tasmps.greens.org.au

I don't know enough about your other points to comment, and I can't find detailed policies on those matters.

 

[Father Jack]

I'm a worker, no Uni degree. I usually vote Labor, as I did in the upper house election held last month in Tassie. I voted liberals for the lower house though.
My reasons.
I've pretty much lived in rural Tassie all my life. A lot of my friend are farm hands, tradies, they are manual labourers. I worry for their future as the only viable way Labor could have formed government was an alliance with the greens.
The greens down here are against beef farming, salmon farms, trout farms, dairy farms. They're against opening up wilderness areas for tourism, they've shut down forestry and want to shut down industries in Bellbay and in the North West. They're against mining, to be honest, they're pretty much against Every single job a rural person might aspire to.
So call me uneducated or stupid or redneck, by those are MY reasons.
I trust Labor Much more in relation to workers rights, however I see the Liberals providing more jobs in rural areas.

I'd suggest you study actual Greens policies before making sweeping generalisations like that. Because they tend to take a more nuanced approach to things it's very easy for certain sectors to demonise them.

 

[Caesar]

I'm interested in knowing why PAYEE workers and employees generally vote Liberal when it is antithetical to their best interests.

A lot of answers have already been covered but a big one in Australia is hip pocket voting

Australia is the second-highest taxing country in the world and at the last election, the ALP did not come close to matching the Coalition's tax cuts for low-to-middle income earners ($40-$120K)

Who do you think middle-income families being squeezed on wages growth are going to vote for in that situation?

The ALP can promise anything they like, but until they reassure workers that they won't come after their shrinking paycheques they will never get their votes

 

[Gough]

A lot of answers have already been covered but a big one in Australia is hip pocket voting

Australia is the second-highest taxing country in the world and at the last election, the ALP promised to tax anyone earning more than $60K substantially more than the Coalition

Who do you think middle-income families being squeezed on wages growth are going to vote for in that situation?

The ALP can promise anything they like, but until they reassure workers that they won't come after their shrinking paycheques they will never get their votes

Yet the Liberal Party are consistently higher taxing, higher pending. Amazing what you can spin with a suck hole media.

 

[Caesar]

Yet the Liberal Party are consistently higher taxing, higher pending. Amazing what you can spin with a suck hole media.

You can blame the media, you can blame the voters - but the reality is, when people feel like they're financially squeezed they don't have the luxury of thinking long term.

If I'm earning $80K a year, have two young kids, and haven't had a proper pay rise in 10 years - I am going to look at both parties' election platforms and see who is going to put more money in my pocket as soon as possible. Last election, the Coalition offered those voters double the tax cut that the opposition did. Why on earth would they vote ALP?

If you want voters to think longer term, you first need to improve their immediate situation so that they feel like they have that luxury.

Currently the Coalition knows they can do pretty much whatever they want as long as they throw a few pennies at the lower end of the spectrum, because the ALP are neglecting them even worse

 

[Ned_Flanders]

A lot of answers have already been covered but a big one in Australia is hip pocket voting

Australia is the second-highest taxing country in the world and at the last election, the ALP did not come close to matching the Coalition's tax cuts for low-to-middle income earners ($40-$120K)

Who do you think middle-income families being squeezed on wages growth are going to vote for in that situation?

The ALP can promise anything they like, but until they reassure workers that they won't come after their shrinking paycheques they will never get their votes

1) it was not the whole world, it was of 34 industrialized nations

2) its not the highest taxing country. the reporter is picking isolated elements of the stats to make a broad claim. From this list compiled on wiki (ranking nations of tax revenue as a share of GDP), we come in 43rd List of countries by tax revenue to GDP ratio - Wikipedia

 

[Caesar]

1) it was not the whole world, it was of 34 industrialized nations

2) its not the highest taxing country. the reporter is picking isolated elements of the stats to make a broad claim. From this list compiled on wiki (ranking nations of tax revenue as a share of GDP), we come in 43rd List of countries by tax revenue to GDP ratio - Wikipedia

1) same difference, nobody cares how our tax situation compares to Burundi

2) it is the second highest taxing country from a personal income tax perspective, which is what is relevant to the average workers we are discussing

The personal income tax impost also climbed to 40.3 per cent of total government revenue, below only the the Scandinavian welfare state of Denmark in 2017 – before the government's staggered income tax cuts take effect over the next five years.

Given that context, why the ALP thought it was a good move to promise to tax lower-middle income earners MORE than the Coalition at the last election is beyond me. Totally bizarre strategy.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

1) same difference, nobody cares how our tax situation compares to Burundi

2) it is the second highest taxing country from a personal income tax perspective, which is the relevant perspective to what we are discussing (i.e. the voting proclivities of average workers)



Given that context, why the ALP thought it was a good move to promise to tax lower-middle income earners MORE than the Coalition at the last election is beyond me. Totally bizarre strategy.

and thats idiotic. there is no point only focusing on income tax if you're being reamed on consumption tax. it doesnt matter how the govt take the money from you, its how much they take that matters.

 

[Caesar]

and thats idiotic. there is no point only focusing on income tax if you're being reamed on consumption tax. it doesnt matter how the govt take the money from you, its how much they take that matters.

people care about how much money they see in their pay packet at the end of the week

your average worker has a lot more control over their consumption than their income, especially in times of stagnant wages growth

bizarre I have to explain this to a Labor man

 

[Father Jack]

people care about how much money they see in their pay packet at the end of the week

your average worker has a lot more control over their consumption than their income, especially in times of stagnant wages growth

bizarre I have to explain this to a Labor man

Bizarre that you have to explain LNP talking points to a Labor man? I wouldn't have thought so.

 

[Caesar]

Bizarre that you have to explain LNP talking points to a Labor man? I wouldn't have thought so.

It's not a talking point, it's reality

If Labor want lower and middle income earners to vote for them - stop taxing them harder than the Coalition does

Pretty simple and straightforward for the so-called worker's party, I'd have thought