this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2025
54 points (98.2% liked)

Australia

4596 readers
72 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

They’re outnumbered by the rest of us, but they are a large enough voting block to decide any election.

If they're outnumbered, how are they deciding the election?

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Because the rest of us don't have houses and aren't set to lose half our net worth by such policy changes. So, we have a variety of election policies that we prioritise.

When Labor propose making changes to the status quo, even with mild changes, they have historically lost the election.

It might be different next time, but it'd be a huge political risk to propose changes again after previous rejections.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Unless you're going to sell your house, it halving in value is irrelevant. In fact your primary place of residence halving in value would be an amazing thing for most people, as then they would be eligible for many handouts and subsidies that they currently wouldn't be thanks to means testing. People wouldn't have to sell their house to be able to afford in-home care (which is ironic).

[–] Seagoon_@aussie.zone 2 points 1 week ago

Rates would also go down.

[–] YeahToast@aussie.zone 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Because they are often wealthy, connected and have a voice, for example negative gearing. This only impacted a small percentage of people compared to the masses, but still made labor lose in a landslide to the liberal party in 2019

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 points 1 week ago

So they're not outnumbered then, are they?

[–] guismo@aussie.zone 0 points 1 week ago

Because they own the media. Or they are the ones the media wants to please.

Seeing TV on the gym always make me wonder who the hell makes that content and who the hell is meant to consume it.

Are all the viewers real estate agents, house owners paying for renovation or people on yatch trips? I don't see a single normal person on those shows.