2022 Victorian State Election-November 26

[Saint]

I think you'll probably find that when the younger generation get older they will vote for their selfish immediate interests.

Yeah, but the long-term problem for them is that by hoarding the wealth for boomers, the younger generation as they age will have fewer people with investment properties, fewer people with wealth to protect. Many more will be renting, working beyond their retirement years, many more will be on social services after they turn 55.

The Libs are creating a wealth and demographic divide which was always going to die out. With wealth increasingly hoarded by a minority, the majority are going to move to the parties which don't favour existing wealth and provide a living pension/wage.

The idiom that as people age they will vote conservative is only true if enough of them have acquired wealth over that journey. Which was true for the 70's-2000's, but it's no longer true. Millennials will (on the majority) be less well off than their parents. They're not going to vote for the policies which led to this happening.

It's already happening in elections, but the Liberal media is telling the Libs it's just a messaging problem. But the reality is that they're facing a huge demographic problem of their own creation.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Yeah, but the long-term problem for them is that by hoarding the wealth for boomers, the younger generation as they age will have fewer people with investment properties, fewer people with wealth to protect. Many more will be renting, working beyond their retirement years, many more will be on social services after they turn 55.

The Libs are creating a wealth and demographic divide which was always going to die out. With wealth increasingly hoarded by a minority, the majority are going to move to the parties which don't favour existing wealth and provide a living pension/wage.

The idiom that as people age they will vote conservative is only true if enough of them have acquired wealth over that journey. Which was true for the 70's-2000's, but it's no longer true. Millennials will (on the majority) be less well off than their parents. They're not going to vote for the policies which led to this happening.

It's already happening in elections, but the Liberal media is telling the Libs it's just a messaging problem. But the reality is that they're facing a huge demographic problem of their own creation.

The funny thing is that you think this is a new phenomenon with the Boomer generation.

So long as we keep adding people to the world, on average everyone will own a bit less of it.
Its pretty obvious what the long term outlook will be if we keep going down this path.

 

[Saint]

The funny thing is that you think this is a new phenomenon with the Boomer generation.

So long as we keep adding people to the world, on average everyone will own a bit less of it.
Its pretty obvious what the long term outlook will be if we keep going down this path.

But wealth reflects this. The land which holds this wealth is reduced. Instead of needing a quarter acre in Camberwell to have $1m worth of property, you could have 1/8 of an acre in Wantirna (or equivalent).

If the equality ratio had stayed the same as it had through the 70's-90's, then the next generation would still be better off than their parents. But because those at the top 5% have been able to accumulate greater wealth at a rate greater than previous generations, then there's less to go round for the other 95%.

 

[Magruder]

Liberals refuse to listen to this fact: you cannot make someone a conservative if they don’t have anything to conserve.

Interesting that some of the younger liberals are already talking about removing negative gearing and cgt discounts.

Hence the continued need to convince people to vote against their own interests.

The politics of grievance in a nutshell.

 

[Gralin]

But wealth reflects this. The land which holds this wealth is reduced. Instead of needing a quarter acre in Camberwell to have $1m worth of property, you could have 1/8 of an acre in Wantirna (or equivalent).

If the equality ratio had stayed the same as it had through the 70's-90's, then the next generation would still be better off than their parents. But because those at the top 5% have been able to accumulate greater wealth at a rate greater than previous generations, then there's less to go round for the other 95%.

its also that fact that younger people will see older people as more conservative as they generally have values and fashion from an earlier time

its like how you see the "young conservatives" that dress look and act like someone twice their age to fit into that crowd

conservative doesn't have to mean rich, intergenerational wealth does tend to lead itself to voting more conservatively but so does being part of a religious family

 

[Fire]

The funny thing is that you think this is a new phenomenon with the Boomer generation.

So long as we keep adding people to the world, on average everyone will own a bit less of it.
Its pretty obvious what the long term outlook will be if we keep going down this path.

This would be sage advice if the wealth gap wasn't an increasingly gaping chasm.

The problem isn't that there's too many people; even ignoring the desert Australia is pretty underpopulated by global standards. The problem is too much wealth belongs to too few, and the trend is ongoing. So long as a handful of people own most of everything, then Earth could have 10 thousand people and the majority could still be poor.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I consider smelling it consuming it. Smells like s**t. Don't like the stuff. Don't want to be forced to put up with it because the rukes are lax around it. Same with smokes. Do it in an assigned area away from those who choose not to endulge in it

Mate I don't want to smell piss in the city or BO on the train but I don't really have a choice - it's part of living in society sometimes you just have to put up with things that irritate you.

 

[Magruder]

its also that fact that younger people will see older people as more conservative as they generally have values and fashion from an earlier time

its like how you see the "young conservatives" that dress look and act like someone twice their age to fit into that crowd

conservative doesn't have to mean rich, intergenerational wealth does tend to lead itself to voting more conservatively but so does being part of a religious family

agreed.

But...

There's a need to separate the conservative disposition from:

• those who take on a repressive set of social positions based on some received or religious views.
• those who vote based on a set of grievances and position the cause of their discontent with a particular person or group. Even more dangerous is when the salve to those grievances are seen as embodied in a particular person.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

There's nothing inaccurate about the number of people that are indirectly/directly on the Victorian Government payroll in some way or another, all that information is out there as a matter of public record. And it's not surprising that those benefitting from it would have no interest in changing government and possibly putting that gravy train at risk. Guy did say he wanted to cancel infrastructure projects in favour of cheap transport, you can just imagine how well that went down with the the average traide who is employed in that industry. Let's face it Andrews 'popularity' has little to do with his personality or supposed woke 'values' but everything to do with how he has positively impacted the bottom line of many Melburnians pockets and he was won their support and vote because of it.

So the answer is stop building public transport and make it cheaper - so more people using an already overcrowded network?

 

[Millky95]

Mate I don't want to smell piss in the city or BO on the train but I don't really have a choice - it's part of living in society sometimes you just have to put up with things that irritate you.

Can't smoke within a certain number of metres of entries to buildings. No reason why we can't apply the same rules to weed as we do smokes

 

[Magruder]

Culture wars is all they have.

particularly when you can convince the "white middle class" that the cause of their declining economic and social position is the "woke" or progressives rather than the policies that entrench division and substantive inequality.

Lyndon Johnson once said something along the lines of - convince the lowest white man that you believe him to be better than the highest black and they'll not only vote for you but they'll empty their pockets to do so...

Misogyny and Vietnam aside, LBJ was one of the great social reformers but sowing division to win in the short term is not a new concept.

 

[Saint]

Culture wars is all they have.

One group wants to conserve their wealth.
One group wants to conserve their faith.

The Liberals try to make each feel like their wealth and faith is under attack, but only the second group is convinced at the moment. And just the action of making them feel under attack requires an enemy which is putting those things at risk. And it sounds like it's everyone else in the population.

And both groups are shrinking as a % of the voting population.

 

[PJays]

How good is seeing the Liberal Party self-destruct its electability in its efforts to please the Sky News set, Rupert 'one foot in the grave' Murdoch and to copy Trump?

What Sky News policies did they take to the election?

Liberal's main policies were:

• Spend lots of money on health
• $2 public transport fares
• Free lunches for school kids

Those are all centrist policies. Arguably they sound more like Labor than Liberal policy.

They also promised 50% emissions reduction by 2030 (less than Federal Labor's target of 43%) although it wasn't clear how they would achieve this.

Liberal also said nothing about various left policies:

• Parents should be jailed for talking to their own kids about gender transition. Liberal said nothing about this ridiculous anti-family policy which most Victorians would reject. And centrist/centre left and libertarian minor parties already rejected in parliament (Sustainable Australia, Hinch Justice Party, Lib Dems).

• Cutting spending (Victoria's expenditure has grown 10% a year since 2014, other states average 6%). Liberal said nothing about this- they merely said they would examine the debt and attempt to set a debt cap once they had examined the accounts more closely. And they said they'd cut 7 taxes and bring the budget to surplus one year earlier - 2024/25. But as far as I'm aware, Liberal didn't actually commit to cutting any expenditure whatsoever, other than switching Suburban Rail Loop funds into health.

This is why Sky News presenters have been criticizing them hard since Saturday- Bolt, Panahi wanted them to be more conservative.

 

[Saint]

What Sky News policies did they take to the election?

Liberal's main policies were:

• Spend lots of money on health
• $2 public transport fares
• Free lunches for school kids

Those are all centrist policies. Arguably they sound more like Labor than Liberal policy.

They also promised 50% emissions reduction by 2030 (less than Federal Labor's target of 43%) although it wasn't clear how they would achieve this.

Liberal also said nothing about various left policies:

• Parents should be jailed for talking to their own kids about gender transition. Liberal said nothing about this ridiculous anti-family policy which most Victorians would reject. And centrist/centre left and libertarian minor parties already rejected in parliament (Sustainable Australia, Hinch Justice Party, Lib Dems).

• Cutting spending (Victoria's expenditure has grown 10% a year since 2014, other states average 6%). Liberal said nothing about this- they merely said they would examine the debt and attempt to set a debt cap once they had examined the accounts more closely. And they said they'd cut 7 taxes and bring the budget to surplus one year earlier - 2024/25. But as far as I'm aware, Liberal didn't actually commit to cutting any expenditure whatsoever, other than switching Suburban Rail Loop funds into health.

This is why Sky News presenters have been criticizing them hard since Saturday- Bolt, Panahi wanted them to be more conservative.

That first one is fear-baiting central. That first sentence is nonsense. It's not really a thing and if any candidate mentioned it, this fact would be pointed out to them.

Picking arbitrary points for measuring expenditure isn't great use of data. And the Libs don't publicise where they're going to cut costs. We all know. They'll cut health and education budget spending, just as they always do. If they'd publicised that policy, they'd have lost by more. The switch from SRL to Health never really made sense because you can't shift CAPEX spending to fix the OPEX problem health has at the moment.

As soon as the Libs said they'd fix the healthcare system, I knew they'd lost. They wouldn't know where to start to improve a public service. None of them have any experience whatsoever.

 

[PJays]

That first one is fear-baiting central. That first sentence is nonsense. It's not really a thing and if any candidate mentioned it, this fact would be pointed out to them.

See here

Examples of illegal practices

• a parent refusing to support their child’s request for medical treatment that will enable them to prevent physical changes from puberty that do not align with the child’s gender identity and denying their child access to any health care services that would affirm their child’s gender identity

It literally says on a government website that parents must support their child going on puberty blockers. Otherwise the parent is a criminal.

The whole point of the Change and Suppression bill was that to "suppress" a child's "gender identity" isn't allowed. In practical terms "suppress" means anything other than full blown affirmation and it doesn't matter who you are- parent, psychiatrist, GP, pastor, social worker, whatever.

And then there's the Victorian Education Department policy:

There may be circumstances in which students wish or need to undertake gender transition without the consent of their parent/s (or carer/s), and/or without consulting medical practitioners.

The Change and Suppression Bill by the Victorian government would not be supported by most members of the Victorian community if they took the time to read it.

It was criticized by the Law Institute of Victoria, The Australian Medical Association and the Royal Australian and NZ College of Psychiatrists.

It is the most extreme legislation of it's kind in the world. Of relevance to this conversation (the poster I was replying to) is that it's far left policy. If Liberal was being "Sky News" they would've gone to the election promising to repeal and/or amend it.

Picking arbitrary points for measuring expenditure isn't great use of data.

The last time the government changed hands isn't arbitrary- it's a highly relevant date.

The switch from SRL to Health never really made sense because you can't shift CAPEX spending to fix the OPEX problem health has at the moment.

It makes sense when you remember that economists think the SRL is a massive white elephant, and Labor has only allocated $11 billion of the cost of stage 1 into the budget.

As soon as the Libs said they'd fix the healthcare system, I knew they'd lost. They wouldn't know where to start to improve a public service. None of them have any experience whatsoever.

They couldn't do much worse with the hospital and ambulance systems than Labor have done.

 

[Saint]

See here

It literally says on a government website that parents must support their child going on puberty blockers. Otherwise the parent is a criminal.

The whole point of the Change and Suppression bill was that to "suppress" a child's "gender identity" isn't allowed. In practical terms "suppress" means anything other than full blown affirmation and it doesn't matter who you are- parent, psychiatrist, GP, pastor, social worker, whatever.

And then there's the Victorian Education Department policy:



The Change and Suppression Bill by the Victorian government would not be supported by most members of the Victorian community if they took the time to read it.

It was criticized by the Law Institute of Victoria, The Australian Medical Association and the Royal Australian and NZ College of Psychiatrists.

It is the most extreme legislation of it's kind in the world. Of relevance to this conversation (the poster I was replying to) is that it's far left policy. If Liberal was being "Sky News" they would've gone to the election promising to repeal and/or amend it.


The last time the government changed hands isn't arbitrary- it's a highly relevant date.



It makes sense when you remember that economists think the SRL is a massive white elephant, and Labor has only allocated $11 billion of the cost of stage 1 into the budget.


They couldn't do much worse with the hospital and ambulance systems than Labor have done.

That's if the child's gender identity has been determined. For example, a child could be living as a male and start to develop breasts and not want to, in which case a parent can't prevent hormone blockers being used. - This would be especially important in the Intersex community.

The actual legislation is less black and white than that website indicates.

https://content.legislation.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-02/21-003aa%20authorised.pdf

 

[Chief]

It literally says on a government website that parents must support their child going on puberty blockers. Otherwise the parent is a criminal.

The whole point of the Change and Suppression bill was that to "suppress" a child's "gender identity" isn't allowed. In practical terms "suppress" means anything other than full blown affirmation and it doesn't matter who you are- parent, psychiatrist, GP, pastor, social worker, whatever.

You know that this doesn't mean a child can just go out and dose up on the good stuff?

There is a whole process to go through that takes a few years usually.

If you stop your kid from seeking this care, you're just a campaigner. This seems to be recognised by the law. Good on them.

 

[PJays]

The actual legislation is less black and white than that website indicates.

It's vague. Which is exactly why the Law Institute of Victoria criticized it.

If you stop your kid from seeking this care, you're just a campaigner. This seems to be recognised by the law. Good on them.

What is "this care"?

There is no consensus amongst psychiatrists about how to treat gender dysphoria. There's minimal long term data on post-transition outcomes, especially after the explosion of cases over the last decade which have reversed the long term trend of male-to-female. Now it's two thirds female-to-male.

The bill is written in such a way that standard psychiatric exploratory treatment could potentially be caught in the net of "practices" which "suppress" gender identity. Which is why the Royal Australian and NZ College of Psychiatrists criticized the bill.

 

[Chadwiko]

There is no consensus amongst psychiatrists about how to treat gender dysphoria.

That's because being trans is not "gender dysphoria".

Being trans is not a psychiatric 'disorder' and is not treated as such:

Example 1
Example 2
Example 3

Your framing of the issue is text-book Sky News bullshit scare tactics, whilst clearly ignoring the actual facts.

 

[nobbyiscool]

What Sky News policies did they take to the election?

Liberal's main policies were:

• Spend lots of money on health
• $2 public transport fares
• Free lunches for school kids

Those are all centrist policies. Arguably they sound more like Labor than Liberal policy.

They also promised 50% emissions reduction by 2030 (less than Federal Labor's target of 43%) although it wasn't clear how they would achieve this.

Liberal also said nothing about various left policies:

• Parents should be jailed for talking to their own kids about gender transition. Liberal said nothing about this ridiculous anti-family policy which most Victorians would reject. And centrist/centre left and libertarian minor parties already rejected in parliament (Sustainable Australia, Hinch Justice Party, Lib Dems).

• Cutting spending (Victoria's expenditure has grown 10% a year since 2014, other states average 6%). Liberal said nothing about this- they merely said they would examine the debt and attempt to set a debt cap once they had examined the accounts more closely. And they said they'd cut 7 taxes and bring the budget to surplus one year earlier - 2024/25. But as far as I'm aware, Liberal didn't actually commit to cutting any expenditure whatsoever, other than switching Suburban Rail Loop funds into health.

This is why Sky News presenters have been criticizing them hard since Saturday- Bolt, Panahi wanted them to be more conservative.

See here

It literally says on a government website that parents must support their child going on puberty blockers. Otherwise the parent is a criminal.

The whole point of the Change and Suppression bill was that to "suppress" a child's "gender identity" isn't allowed. In practical terms "suppress" means anything other than full blown affirmation and it doesn't matter who you are- parent, psychiatrist, GP, pastor, social worker, whatever.

And then there's the Victorian Education Department policy:



The Change and Suppression Bill by the Victorian government would not be supported by most members of the Victorian community if they took the time to read it.

It was criticized by the Law Institute of Victoria, The Australian Medical Association and the Royal Australian and NZ College of Psychiatrists.

It is the most extreme legislation of it's kind in the world. Of relevance to this conversation (the poster I was replying to) is that it's far left policy. If Liberal was being "Sky News" they would've gone to the election promising to repeal and/or amend it.


The last time the government changed hands isn't arbitrary- it's a highly relevant date.



It makes sense when you remember that economists think the SRL is a massive white elephant, and Labor has only allocated $11 billion of the cost of stage 1 into the budget.


They couldn't do much worse with the hospital and ambulance systems than Labor have done.

I enjoy when people spout bullshit then use "evidence" that absolutely does not say what they claimed.

It's even funnier when they're too stupid to realise it.

 

[Chief]

What is "this care"?

When you become a doctor you can learn all the details.

Good luck.

 

[PJays]

To all the posters above:

Go read what the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists have been saying about gender dysphoric/gender incongruent kids and how to treat them.

- Their response to the legislation in Feb 2021

- Their new position statement released August 2021

Their position is quite clearly at odds with the Andrews government.

I know who I'd be trusting.

 

[PJays]

I enjoy when people spout bullshit then use "evidence" that absolutely does not say what they claimed.

So.

Your 14 year old daughter tells their school counsellor/wellbeing coordinator they're now identifying as a boy.

Madison will now be called Marcus.

Funnily enough, several of your child's friends also do likewise.

"Marcus" is now referred as such by all "his" teachers. Marcus asks the school wellbeing coordinator for a referral to a psychiatrist.

You tell your daughter you think she needs to question this transition, and that you believe continuing to identify as a girl is more appropriate for her. You tell her that you don't think she should see a psychiatrist. She should wait and see how she feels in 12 months.

Now, the law does not stipulate that "identity" has to be medically diagnosed.

What is your status, as a parent, under Victorian law?

 

[Chadwiko]

You tell your daughter you think she needs to question this transition, and that you believe continuing to identify as a girl is more appropriate for her. You tell her that you don't think she should see a psychiatrist.

This is straight up bad parenting.

 

[peetoo]

The funny thing is that you think this is a new phenomenon with the Boomer generation.

So long as we keep adding people to the world, on average everyone will own a bit less of it.
Its pretty obvious what the long term outlook will be if we keep going down this path.

Some places have already got rapidly declining population