As Yes supporters label yesterday's swift rejection of an Indigenous Voice to Parliament a "kick in the guts", a clearer picture emerges of the parts WA where the concept was least accepted.
"Mr Hastie said it was now up to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to unify the country but said the Liberals' focus over the next week would be around cost of living." Keane Bourke, Ted O'Connor, Sam Tomlin.
What a great line from the writers.
The sentence encapsulates the opposition's whole story:
No lessons learned from their defeat.
Brain dead when it comes to actual leadership.
Saw this referendum as one in a series of vapid political games they'll mindlessly blather about until the next election.
You're viewing a single thread.
5 comments
I've worked many elections in the past issuing and counting votes. What really struck me about this referendum in particular was that way more people said they have no current address. There does (anecdotally at least) seem to be a huge increase in homelessness, even relative to the 2022 federal election, and with only the wealthiest electorates (Curtin and Perth) voting Yes, I do wonder how much of the No vote was a protest vote of sorts, as if to say that the government should focus on more immediate issues affecting more people.
I did vote yes, but I can 100% understand a protest vote of "no" because i do feel like other problems ought to be addressed in priority.
This is so important.
While your experience is anecdotal, and i'm not aware yet of any large uptick in homelessness numbers, which probably will never catch the true homelessness number anyway. A low level, maybe quiet, protest vote along these lines is so believable.
Especially when you consider the cosy policies the Labor government have had towards the housing industry. It seems like no sticks, all carrots. No major changes to what seems an unsustainable housing inflation problem. At this rate we will destroy the wealth of the Australian family and pump it into an asset rich landlord class.
The best that can be said of their policy, and it is good, is that in a few years the people who absolutely lose the property game will have a higher chance of living a life of relative comfort than now.
the people who absolutely lose the property game will have a higher chance of living a life of relative comfort than now.
How do you figure that? Are you assuming rents will be lower? Wages relatively higher?
Na, i'm only talking about the people who absolutely lose. And its because there is more long term funding for building social housing projects.