Why do workers vote Liberal?

[OnTheRocks]

Middle class PAYEE swing voter here. Allow me to brain dump why, to people like me, Liberal sometime seems preferable:
1. A complete disinterest in my work entitlements. Let’s be real we’re all doing quite well if we are full time professionals.
2. Labor are incapable of rejecting woke attitudes. This type of thing does not resonate with workers and is more aligned with the views of corporate “higher ups”
3. Sometimes it feels like Labor is more about our right to not work than our right to work and improve our own circumstances.
4. If our employer does well, we do well. Liberal are the pro business choice.
5. We are at a point in our lives where we prioritise the thriving and well-being of our own family over the people at the bottom.
6. Labor always come across as “vengeful”
7. Our colleagues who are loudly pro union and pro Labor are generally bad workers and unpleasant to be around
8. Our future and pathway to financial independence is now planned, and Labor seem more likely to derail it

1. Definitely not a worker bee but more like a drone bee. Would rather others do the heavy lifting.
2. The "higher ups" don't represent us when they don't won't to engage in discrimination, bigotry or offensive behaviours. I wish they had a 'it was so much better back in my day' attitude
3. Labor seem more about workers rights when an employer hires someone to do a job that they can't do themselves. Don't they understand that improving workers rights doesn't improve their circumstances
4. Liberals are the pro business choice and the bigger the business the more pro they, so much so that the liberals are pro no tax for offshore businesses
5. I vote liberal because I don't care about anyone other than myself and a few others that I might care about but only if they are of the same ilk as me. It's like I've forgotten about the 'better in my day' attitude
6. Labor come across as "vengeful", I hope they never get an ICAC so they can seek to avenge
7. Because I am a weak individual I hide behind others (who may be fictional) and thus use the term "our" instead of owning my thoughts and saying 'my colleagues'.
8. The liberals have planned the pathway to financial independence and because this makes no sense and I have no Idea what I just wrote but laybah must want to "derail it" before the people (that I don't care about) find out that the 'railed pathway' is going to fall of a cliff.

 

[OnTheRocks]

You mean people with jobs? Gee I wonder why Labor don’t have a loyal working class vote.

No. BG said "sh*t people"
Not all sh*t people "with jobs" vote liberal but all people who will vote liberal are

 

[ElectricG]

1. Definitely not a worker bee but more like a drone bee. Would rather others do the heavy lifting.
2. The "higher ups" don't represent us when they don't won't to engage in discrimination, bigotry or offensive behaviours. I wish they had a 'it was so much better back in my day' attitude
3. Labor seem more about workers rights when an employer hires someone to do a job that they can't do themselves. Don't they understand that improving workers rights doesn't improve their circumstances
4. Liberals are the pro business choice and the bigger the business the more pro they, so much so that the liberals are pro no tax for offshore businesses
5. I vote liberal because I don't care about anyone other than myself and a few others that I might care about but only if they are of the same ilk as me. It's like I've forgotten about the 'better in my day' attitude
6. Labor come across as "vengeful", I hope they never get an ICAC so they can seek to avenge
7. Because I am a weak individual I hide behind others (who may be fictional) and thus use the term "our" instead of owning my thoughts and saying 'my colleagues'.
8. The liberals have planned the pathway to financial independence and because this makes no sense and I have no Idea what I just wrote but laybah must want to "derail it" before the people (that I don't care about) find out that the 'railed pathway' is going to fall of a cliff.

Haha. So liberal voters are stupid people who vote against their own interests, but when they vote in their own interests they are bad people.

Try harder.

By the way, I mean the things I wrote. Not the things your wrote. I don’t know what that is supposed to be.

 

[ElectricG]

No. BG said "sh*t people"
Not all sh*t people "with jobs" vote liberal but all people who will vote liberal are

What will it take to deradicalise people with these views?

 

[Power Raid]

A thing we really need is an estate tax. (Waits for wailing & gnashing of teeth. )

Without it the disparity between the haves & have nots, will continue to get worse. Future generations will find wealth accumulation harder & harder as wealth concentrates in fewer & fewer families.

The shrinking home ownership figures show whats happening. The bottom rung of wealth accumulation, home ownership, is getting further out of reach.

My preference is an annual estate tax rather than waiting for death to hit people the hardest in a time of uncertainty AND as we see in the US and UK too easy to avoid paying.

An annual tax becomes impossible to hide from and has the added benefit as it prevents avoidance of GST and income tax

 

[Power Raid]

Inheritance tax. Family trusts. Negative gearing. Companies actually paying tax. They're all significant.

My issue here is why workers vote Liberal plutocrat when it is antithetical to their best interests. An earlier post showed that you're are regarded as a casual worker if it says so in your work contract even if you're working full time.

Then there's the whole casualisation of the workforce which has further robbed workers of bargaining power and benefits.

Every wage hearing the Liberals fight wage increases.

They have removed penalty rates in hospitality and are working to extend the removal.

The tax burden is inequitable.

Underpayment of wages is rampant.

There are incessant attacks on unions while big business is given virtually free rein.

Robodebt unmercifully attacked the least among us with threats and intimidation while there was no retribution when it came to companies who profited from Jobkeeper.

Note the pattern.

there are definitely issue with many of the items you raise but a complete lack of understanding has "family trusts" and "negative gearing" lumped with the others.

These concepts shouldn't be scrapped......just the opposite, they should be promoted by all for all. As they provide the most efficient and fairest tax outcomes.

Same said with the casualisation of work forces. This is a positive thing but obviously it can go too far. By the way, have you ever caught an uber?

 

[eddiesmith]

there are definitely issue with many of the items you raise but a complete lack of understanding has "family trusts" and "negative gearing" lumped with the others.

These concepts shouldn't be scrapped......just the opposite, they should be promoted by all for all. As they provide the most efficient and fairest tax outcomes.

Same said with the casualisation of work forces. This is a positive thing but obviously it can go too far. By the way, have you ever caught an uber?

I don’t get the hate of casual work, when I was casual I loved it, turned down an offer from work to go part time. It’s great being able to simply say I don’t want to work tomorrow and there was always plenty of work when I did want to work.

 

[OnTheRocks]

Haha. So liberal voters are stupid people who vote against their own interests, but when they vote in their own interests they are bad people.

Try harder.

By the way, I mean the things I wrote. Not the things your wrote. I don’t know what that is supposed to be.

What will it take to deradicalise people with these views?

Hehe ....^^^ ....triggered!

Liberal voters aren't stupid people but you make a good case for them to be called that, going by your ramblings

Hmmmm how to deradicalise them?
Touch the screen as I pray for your salvation, that should work.

 

[Power Raid]

I don’t get the hate of casual work, when I was casual I loved it, turned down an offer from work to go part time. It’s great being able to simply say I don’t want to work tomorrow and there was always plenty of work when I did want to work.

It is harder to get a bank loan if you're a casual but the issue here is banking regulation rather than casualisation of employment.

Islamic banking concepts (which was christian and jewish previously), solves this issue

 

[Kram]

I don’t get the hate of casual work, when I was casual I loved it, turned down an offer from work to go part time. It’s great being able to simply say I don’t want to work tomorrow and there was always plenty of work when I did want to work.

The loading never makes up for the lack of other benefits imo.

 

[eddiesmith]

The loading never makes up for the lack of other benefits imo.

For the job I was doing it was fine. I look at the 2 weeks sick leave and 4 weeks annual leave I currently get and 25% extra would more than cover that.

But for all the complaining about businesses preferring casuals, my company was offering people permanent employment after a while and full time or part time depended on the hours you’d been doing.

 

[eddiesmith]

It is harder to get a bank loan if you're a casual but the issue here is banking regulation rather than casualisation of employment.

Islamic banking concepts (which was christian and jewish previously), solves this issue

Although I’ve found it hard as a full time employee, still had to have 6 months of wages to satisfy them. Was helpful as contract was only 6 months initially so squeezed it in nicely

 

[ElectricG]

Hehe ....^^^ ....triggered!

Liberal voters aren't stupid people but you make a good case for them to be called that, going by your ramblings

Hmmmm how to deradicalise them?
Touch the screen as I pray for your salvation, that should work.

“Hehe triggered” grow up. My post has already elicited a number of emotional responses including BG’s “sh*t people” comment which is now deleted.

I’ve already said that half the time I vote Labor so I’m hardly going to be “triggered” by any criticism of the Liberal party. The rusted on Labor voter perpetually triggered. We’re coming up to 10 years without a federal Labor government. 10 years of demoralising defeat - and it shows. I forgot to add “schadenfreude” to my list of reasons for voting Liberal. It’s irresistible.

 

[NSWCROW]

#6 wtf lol

 

[Pessimistic]

there are definitely issue with many of the items you raise but a complete lack of understanding has "family trusts" and "negative gearing" lumped with the others.

These concepts shouldn't be scrapped......just the opposite, they should be promoted by all for all. As they provide the most efficient and fairest tax outcomes.

Same said with the casualisation of work forces. This is a positive thing but obviously it can go too far. By the way, have you ever caught an uber?

uber uber eats apple apps where profit goes offshore where it didn’t before? Can’t see a problem with that

 

[Pessimistic]

Whatever side you are if you voted ‘triggered’ you are a moron

 

[Power Raid]

uber uber eats apple apps where profit goes offshore where it didn’t before? Can’t see a problem with that

absolutely

That's why I support increasing GST, like we see in nations promoted by many, such as norway and even UK and NZ. Increasing GST avoids transfer pricing issues and makes local industry more competitive.

 

[OnTheRocks]

“Hehe triggered” grow up.

The rusted on Labor voter perpetually triggered.

Whatever side you are if you got ‘triggered’ you are a moron

 

[Borough Blood]

This board is rather more your 'holding out for a position in management' type compared to working families.

Geez you post some absolute drivel

 

[Brad Goodman]

“Hehe triggered” grow up. My post has already elicited a number of emotional responses including BG’s “sh*t people” comment which is now deleted.

Deleted not long after posting (sometime between when you saw it and when you posted your response) as I realised it was pretty harsh and not very classy.

I just have an issue with people who vote out of self interest and/or on issues that aren’t relevant to them but harm others, but I guess that is their prerogative so its pointless getting worked up about it.

 

[ElectricG]

Deleted not long after posting (sometime between when you saw it and when you posted your response) as I realised it was pretty harsh and not very classy.

I just have an issue with people who vote out of self interest and/or on issues that aren’t relevant to them but harm others, but I guess that is their prerogative so its pointless getting worked up about it.

Fair enough. I do think this represents the “win win” narrative that has been crafted to demonise Lib voters. Either they’re too stupid to vote out of self interest (consensus in this thread) or they’re bad people for voting out of self interest - but it’s the right thing for workers to vote Labor out of self interest. In any case a negative stereotype is reinforced - it’s just whether they’re stupid or bad.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

1. A complete disinterest in my work entitlements. Let’s be real we’re all doing quite well if we are full time professionals.

At least you're honest about it. Many of us don't know what we've got until it's gone.

2. Labor are incapable of rejecting woke attitudes. This type of thing does not resonate with workers and is more aligned with the views of corporate “higher ups”

Fair enough that it doesn't resonate. I suppose it would be nice if people cared about the lot of those who face more stigma, harassment and barriers to success than they do, but most people are self-centred and I shouldn't expect more.

But what really bemuses me is that many people seem actively hostile to things they regard as "woke". If it was as simple as those things not resonating with those people, surely they'd just be indifferent to it and take no notice. Instead people actually seem angered that anyone thinks it's important to be nice to the people who endure racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia or ableism.

Why is it important enough to affect one's vote if it's just a matter of not resonating? The issues of pensioners and veterans don't really resonate with me, beyond a sense that they deserve to be treated with dignity, but I'm not hostile to a politician discussing those matters. I just pay little attention when they do.

3. Sometimes it feels like Labor is more about our right to not work than our right to work and improve our own circumstances.

What in particular makes you feel this way? Is anyone disputing your right to work and improve your circumstances? There are those who can't work full-time or simply function better when they don't work full-time, whether it be due to disability, mental health, age or single parenthood. I think those people deserve a stable existence too, but there certainly are people who dispute their right to not work and still survive.

4. If our employer does well, we do well.

Do we? Always? If an employer outsources an Australian worker's job to China, they could save 90% of the cost of wages. In that case, the employer has done well, right? But the worker is out of a job.

Similarly, if you and your colleagues work very hard and your boss makes a bigger profit as a result, they've done well. But nothing forces them to give any of that increased profit to the workers. In that case have the workers really done well, financially?

Or say you work hard and maintain your job, with modest pay increases each year. Yet your boss is making an absolute fortune each year. In fact, everyone's boss is. And there are so many bosses doing so well, buying houses and boats and cars, that the price of everything is going through the roof. The price of the house and the car you want to buy rises beyond what you can afford with your modest pay increases. Your employer has done well, but have you?

Liberal are the pro business choice.

Everything in moderation. I believe there's a level to which being pro-business is good, because in our economic system we rely on businesses to employ a lot of people. But going beyond that level becomes a real problem. The economy exists to serve the people, not the other way around. If pro-business environmental laws lead to pollution, deforestation or environmental destruction, who loses from that? If pro-business tax laws lead to a lower tax intake and we have to cut health or education budgets as a result, who loses from that?

5. We are at a point in our lives where we prioritise the thriving and well-being of our own family over the people at the bottom.

Does it have to be either/or? Can't we have wellbeing for both?

I think people at the bottom suffering creates tomorrow's criminals and abusers. There's a well established link between poverty and crime, and between domestic violence begetting more violence.

6. Labor always come across as “vengeful”

To whom? Can you point to any policies in particular as being vengeful?

7. Our colleagues who are loudly pro union and pro Labor are generally bad workers and unpleasant to be around

Does it make sense to judge broad groups of people by the bad examples you've seen? I've seen dickheads in every kind. Young, old, left-wing, right-wing, men, women, straight, gay, white, black. If I judged them all by the unpleasant members of their respective groups, then I'd think everyone is a dickhead except me. And that'd make me a dickhead too!

8. Our future and pathway to financial independence is now planned, and Labor seem more likely to derail it

What in particular makes you say this? How will your plan be affected?

 

[ElectricG]

At least you're honest about it. Many of us don't know what we've got until it's gone.

Agreed, but if I am persuaded that those things are not under threat in the lead up to an election it does not push me towards voting Labor.

Fair enough that it doesn't resonate. I suppose it would be nice if people cared about the lot of those who face more stigma, harassment and barriers to success than they do, but most people are self-centred and I shouldn't expect more.

But what really bemuses me is that many people seem actively hostile to things they regard as "woke". If it was as simple as those things not resonating with those people, surely they'd just be indifferent to it and take no notice. Instead people actually seem angered that anyone thinks it's important to be nice to the people who endure racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia or ableism.

Why is it important enough to affect one's vote if it's just a matter of not resonating? The issues of pensioners and veterans don't really resonate with me, beyond a sense that they deserve to be treated with dignity, but I'm not hostile to a politician discussing those matters. I just pay little attention when they do.

I also believe people should be nice to minorities. When people say 'woke' they generally refer to acting with an exaggerated concern for those things. For example, was it reasonable for Albo to publicly call out Bill Shorten for having too many white people in a commercial? And then for Bill Shorten to say yes you're right, Anthony, I am sorry for the skin colour of the people in that video. It's repellent and weird. But it runs deeper than that when we're talking about the working class. Take, say, a white truck driver who makes $70,000 a year - a modest income. The messaging from Labor is that they are prioritising making sure enough Indigenous people are working on government infrastructure projects, enough women are in trades, construction sites have gender neutral bathrooms, and there are enough females his company's board of directors. He can be forgiven for thinking that Labor have everyone's back but his.

What in particular makes you feel this way? Is anyone disputing your right to work and improve your circumstances? There are those who can't work full-time or simply function better when they don't work full-time, whether it be due to disability, mental health, age or single parenthood. I think those people deserve a stable existence too, but there certainly are people who dispute their right to not work and still survive.

Labor talk a disproportionate amount about Jobseekers and people who are otherwise living on benefits. This is not the working class. This is the not-working class.
I think they deserve the right to not work and still survive. I don't think a Liberal vote places that under threat.

Do we? Always? If an employer outsources an Australian worker's job to China, they could save 90% of the cost of wages. In that case, the employer has done well, right? But the worker is out of a job.

No, not always. I think just sometimes the dial needs to be adjusted in favour of the businesses. Other times I don't. I'm not a libertarian or any rubbish like that.

Similarly, if you and your colleagues work very hard and your boss makes a bigger profit as a result, they've done well. But nothing forces them to give any of that increased profit to the workers. In that case have the workers really done well, financially?

Or say you work hard and maintain your job, with modest pay increases each year. Yet your boss is making an absolute fortune each year. In fact, everyone's boss is. And there are so many bosses doing so well, buying houses and boats and cars, that the price of everything is going through the roof. The price of the house and the car you want to buy rises beyond what you can afford with your modest pay increases. Your employer has done well, but have you?

Maybe. I have no doubt my boss makes 5x my salary. I don't believe they work 5x harder than me, but they definitely have 5x the responsibility.

Everything in moderation. I believe there's a level to which being pro-business is good, because in our economic system we rely on businesses to employ a lot of people. But going beyond that level becomes a real problem. The economy exists to serve the people, not the other way around. If pro-business environmental laws lead to pollution, deforestation or environmental destruction, who loses from that? If pro-business tax laws lead to a lower tax intake and we have to cut health or education budgets as a result, who loses from that?

I agree. I want Labor to continue to exist for this reason. Do the people posting in this thread understand the LNP's place in the workings of this country? Or do they see the LNP as a disease which needs to be cured? I think we both know.

I think people at the bottom suffering creates tomorrow's criminals and abusers. There's a well established link between poverty and crime, and between domestic violence begetting more violence.

I agree. We need a strong police force and social safety nets that prevents people at the bottom resorting to crime. At this time I don't think Australia's welfare entitlements are so mean so as to encourage criminal activity - again, subject to change.

To whom? Can you point to any policies in particular as being vengeful?

I can't. It's just a vibe I pick up. Labor have just always seemed like they think forming government would be setting things morally right. I can't back it up with anything.

Does it make sense to judge broad groups of people by the bad examples you've seen? I've seen dickheads in every kind. Young, old, left-wing, right-wing, men, women, straight, gay, white, black. If I judged them all by the unpleasant members of their respective groups, then I'd think everyone is a dickhead except me. And that'd make me a dickhead too!

The behaviour of passionate Labor voters is an overwhelming pattern, though. For example, I've never seen a forum where all the Liberal voters get together and decide for themselves that elections were lost because more than 50% of the population is actually ret*rded. It's a level of sanctimony that is unique to the left, and the idea of vindicating their views with an election outcome is offputting.

What in particular makes you say this? How will your plan be affected?

Basically I want to retire with a 'nest egg' that would allow me to retire with somewhat more than what I'll be drawing from Superannuation. This equates to about $1m which seems like a lot but actually isn't when you consider its intended use over a couple of decades. One doesn't need a vivid imagination to envisage Labor deciding that possession of such a 'nest egg' would make me 'the top end of town' and make the necessary adjustments. I think Labor now have a track record for deciding arbitrarily who the 'haves' and 'have nots' are.

 

[NSWCROW]

It's like 2010 never happened lol

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Agreed, but if I am persuaded that those things are not under threat in the lead up to an election it does not push me towards voting Labor.

Is it possible you're the sort of voter that scare campaigns work on? I don't mean that as an insult and I'm not implying anything negative about your intelligence or character. I'm just saying, some voters can be swayed by being told that things they value are under threat, but don't feel strongly otherwise.

For example, was it reasonable for Albo to publicly call out Bill Shorten for having too many white people in a commercial? And then for Bill Shorten to say yes you're right, Anthony, I am sorry for the skin colour of the people in that video. It's repellent and weird.

Does it make a difference to your life? I can see how someone might find that cringy if they don't think ethnic representation is important, but why would anyone feel so strongly as to consider that "repellent"?

But it runs deeper than that when we're talking about the working class. Take, say, a white truck driver who makes $70,000 a year - a modest income. The messaging from Labor is that they are prioritising making sure enough Indigenous people are working on government infrastructure projects, enough women are in trades, construction sites have gender neutral bathrooms, and there are enough females his company's board of directors. He can be forgiven for thinking that Labor have everyone's back but his.

Doesn't that truck driver have it better than an indigenous person in a similar position, or a woman seeking to break into such a male-dominated industry as truck driving? Can't imagine he'd face a lot of sexual harassment at work or be rejected from jobs because a manager took a look at him and thought he might steal something.

I do see the point about working class white men feeling left out of messaging, and that's why I like seeing messaging that highlights class issues, which should be the real struggle in society. But I would note two things:

1. Not addressing inequalities that are based on race, gender, sexuality or able-bodiedness doesn't make them go away, it just brushes them under the carpet. Should we try and solve those things as a society, or should we neglect them because talking about them upsets some people?
2. Labor, and the left in general, have largely kept their mouths shut about "woke" issues for a while now. The only major exception is the rape and sexual harassment scandals that have plagued the federal LNP this year, but you'd expect any opposition to make hay out of such a shameful and embarrassing situation for the Government. Beyond that, I can't remember the last time Labor publicly spoke up about LGBT issues, and I've only seen one announcement by the Greens on the topic in this election cycle (plus a separate one for disabled people).

Also, could you point out to me where Labor have specifically talked about ensuring construction sites have gender-neutral bathrooms? All I can find is one news story from April where Worksafe Victoria were assessing whether employers should have to do so. While Worksafe do report to the Victorian Government, they do have their own Chief Executive and Board of Directors, so there's clearly some level of delegated decision-making, it's not all just orders from the government the whole way.

In that same article, Labor minister Martin Foley took a fairly, ahem, neutral stance on the issue, saying that everyone has the right to safe and inclusive spaces, without giving an answer on whether employers should have to implement gender-neutral bathrooms. To me that doesn't sound like Labor messaging about ensuring workplaces have gender-neutral bathrooms, it sounds like them trying their best to avoid talking about the topic at all.

Labor talk a disproportionate amount about Jobseekers and people who are otherwise living on benefits.

I question this also. Do you have examples of them doing this? I wonder if you've been given this impression by media narratives more than the party itself. Just as with "woke" issues, I can't remember seeing much at all from Labor in this cycle about people on welfare compared to workers. Labor aren't stupid, they know full well that there are many more workers than welfare recipients, and they want a majority of 2PP votes.

I think they deserve the right to not work and still survive. I don't think a Liberal vote places that under threat.

Doesn't it? The Liberal Party are known for screwing people on welfare if they can get away with it. I point you to the 2014 budget, where the Liberals stopped anyone under 25 from getting Newstart and stopped anyone under 30 from getting it for six months. In fact, they wanted to ban anyone under 30 from getting it at all. They also screwed over single parents and low-income families in general, and pensioners. Many of these policies have since been ditched, but it shows what the Liberal Party will do if they get the chance. And I haven't even mentioned the cashless welfare card.

To be fair, Labor aren't that much better. Jobseeker (previously Newstart) hasn't increased in real terms in 27 years (except for the coronavirus supplement period, but that ended in March). That period of time has included Labor governments too. The reality is both parties will happily screw over welfare recipients in the name of budget savings. They ought not to, since polling suggests people in marginal seats would consider changing their vote to a party that raises the Jobseeker rate.

No, not always. I think just sometimes the dial needs to be adjusted in favour of the businesses. Other times I don't. I'm not a libertarian or any rubbish like that.

Fair enough. Do you think the balance is in favour of workers or businesses right now?

Maybe. I have no doubt my boss makes 5x my salary. I don't believe they work 5x harder than me, but they definitely have 5x the responsibility.

How do you determine if the responsibility to income ratio is fair? Would it continue to remain fair if your boss started making more money without any real increase in responsibility?

I would also like to point out Jobkeeper essentially handed them all the money they needed to make it through the pandemic. While that money was supposed to be spent on keeping people in jobs, the fact that many companies received Jobkeeper and still posted bumper profits shows that in at least some cases, it wasn't the difference between jobs staying or going. Welfare isn't just for poor people, it's also for businesses.

I agree. I want Labor to continue to exist for this reason. Do the people posting in this thread understand the LNP's place in the workings of this country? Or do they see the LNP as a disease which needs to be cured? I think we both know.

You summed up my thoughts on the LNP pretty well, actually. I acknowledge that they represent the views of many people, but other than that, I don't see them as a benefit to this country in any way. But I've never pretended to be neutral.

I agree. We need a strong police force and social safety nets that prevents people at the bottom resorting to crime. At this time I don't think Australia's welfare entitlements are so mean so as to encourage criminal activity - again, subject to change.

"[Raising Jobseeker] has the support of respected economists Chris Richardson and Nicki Hutley, who both argue that Australia has a relatively high minimum wage among rich countries, but one of the lowest unemployment payments."

I'd also imagine we have very different views on what level of welfare encourages criminal activity. I think anything less than Scandinavian levels of welfare does, but I'm happy to agree to disagree on that one, since I haven't read up properly on the issue.

I can't. It's just a vibe I pick up. Labor have just always seemed like they think forming government would be setting things morally right. I can't back it up with anything.

You feel what you feel, and I won't criticise you for doing so. I'd just encourage you to explore what causes you to feel that vibe. The attitude of a particular Labor politician? The way the media portray them? The answer might be illuminating.

The behaviour of passionate Labor voters is an overwhelming pattern, though. For example, I've never seen a forum where all the Liberal voters get together and decide for themselves that elections were lost because more than 50% of the population is actually ret*rded. It's a level of sanctimony that is unique to the left, and the idea of vindicating their views with an election outcome is offputting.

No, it's definitely not unique to the left. I can't speak for others, but I for one don't think most voters in conservative wins are r*****ed, though of course I disagree with their choice. I just think they've been fooled into voting for rich people's best interests rather than their own, due to various sideshows the media are intentionally peddling to distract them. This can range from how awful immigrants are, to how awful "woke" people are, to which leader you'd rather have a beer with. It's all designed to play on our emotions, especially fear of other people trying to change what we're used to.

One doesn't need a vivid imagination to envisage Labor deciding that possession of such a 'nest egg' would make me 'the top end of town' and make the necessary adjustments.

Why's that? You know Labor introduced superannuation specifically to avoid having to support people in old age, right? This is why Labor has never (to my knowledge, happy to be corrected) gone after large super nest eggs for extra taxes. They did introduce the Division 293 income rule for taxing super contributions at a higher rate, but the Coalition preserved it and also reduced the income threshold it kicked in at, so it's not like it's a major point of difference. Taxing you for the size of your super would be counterproductive to their aim. Not even the Greens intend to count super in regular income tax, let alone Labor.

I think Labor now have a track record for deciding arbitrarily who the 'haves' and 'have nots' are.

Okay. Is that thought based on any evidence in particular?