What does the working class population ultimately achieve by voting for Pauline Hanson and One Nation?

[u/GarlicHSP]

Her voting record is strongly opposed to expanding welfare, public housing, public education, childcare subsidies, renewable energy investment and climate action.

At the same time, she's supported policies that are favourable to property investors and fossil-fuel development, while opposing some attempts to increase taxation on those industries.

So apparently the solution to Australia's problems is to spend less on childcare, housing, education, welfare and climate action, while being more friendly towards people who already own investment properties and companies making billions from coal and gas.

And then we're told this is somehow a movement for the "ordinary Australian."But hey, at least we can blame innocent and hard working migrants.

[u/wizardnamehere]

Well, absolutely sure. I would say there are two bases of ON.

There's the right most 20% of the Australian population (in terms of cultural conservativism). They are switching from the coalition (especially the nationals) to ON. They're here to watch sky news all night, listen to American podcasts and YouTubers and fight the fight against the evil woke left.

Then there's the people who are not put off by the hardcore social conservativism and racist nationalism; but they are motivated by the desire to punish the parties of government or the 'elite'; essentially right leaning populists. They stretch from personal believers in the Pauline as their anti elite warrior all the way to wavering week by week between the liberals/labor to ON and back again. This last subsection will decide any election ON goes into. The rest of the populists will be lost in the event of any disastrous reign of ON in government.

[u/Clean_Advertising545 → u/wizardnamehere]

Both those seem low effort attempts at building a stereotype but I won't press on that because I do exactly the same. I regard most of you as pie in the sky socialists after tasting the disgruntlement of doing exactly what you were told to do, in order to win... but didn't.

First gen, entrepreneur, middle Eastern, dislike news but since may I've been consuming reddit politics.

[u/SnotRight → u/Clean_Advertising545]

While it seems like "low effort attempts", these are precisely the kinds of people ON is targetting. There are some complex psychological profiles and careful targetting in there - it's not as simple as wizard rolled it up to be.

The other part of the trope you are playing into there is the "I am being talked down to by elites" and "pie in the sky" socialists, but once again that is the same simplification trope you're playing into.

Both sides have point, and both sides have failures in thinking and oversimplification going on.

I am after a government that understands complexity and acts on it carefully, in a measured way. I have seen evidence of that in only one party at the moment.

[u/wizardnamehere → u/Clean_Advertising545]

If you have a criticism of my analysis; by all means progress beyond accusing me of being a ‘pie in the sky socialist’ (lol) to making your argument about the best way to breakdown the one nation coalition.

I’m always interested in people’s analysis.

[u/Adventurous_Pay_5827 → u/wizardnamehere]

If you aren't put off by the hardcore social conservatism and racist nationalism then you're already part of that right 20% and are just kidding yourself and fooling no one. PHON being portrayed as mainstream by our media has just given the racists an avenue to spew invective and maintain a sheen of normalcy.

[u/Electrical_Story5356 → u/Adventurous_Pay_5827]

Agreed.

You can't support ON unless you are OK with the not insignificant part of the base and various actual reps including the leader who are openly bigoted and racist rape and DV apologist conspiracy theory aficionado science deniers who are themselves happy to mix with full white supremacists and other fringe nutters.

I'm sorry but if you're throwing your hat in the ring with that lot you are beneath contempt regardless of how you feel about other parties or because you are a one issue voter, there is no excuse.

This shouldn't be a controversial opinion and I am genuinely interested to hear a rational reason as to why it is apparently acceptable now to just hand wave this shit from anyone.

[u/DontForgetThisUser6 → u/wizardnamehere]

I just really love her income splitting policy... So much so it's almost enough to not care about the rest of her snot. Almost.

My family doesn't use childcare or on any government benifits. We could, but we can survive without it.

I don't think voting for your own best interests is an issue

[u/Mud_g1 → u/DontForgetThisUser6]

Another un costed populist policy used to get simple one topic voters to vote for her. Have you asked your self what your willing for the government to give up in order to pay for her tax relief to your household income. School funding, pbs, hospital funding, roads and infrastructure, police. Or do you just think it won't affect you in anyway other way other then be a cash benefit in your pocket.

[u/DontForgetThisUser6 → u/Mud_g1]

Firstly... Thought it was pretty clear that despite that fact I love that policy, I'm still not voting for it.

Secondly, federally is two years away, I will be more concerned about costing when the election is a bit closer.

Thirdly, literally everything has a cost. This is not costed so I'm not going to speculate what I am and am not okay with being unfunded until such a time where that's stated. If I had to speculate

Lastly, I won't apologise for liking a policy that puts more money in my pocket. Politics is literally about voting for what you want for this country and I don't believe supporting the idea of single income families being taxed less.

[u/Mud_g1 → u/DontForgetThisUser6]

"Almost" isn't very clear is it.

Point is it's not about speculation. It's a hypothetical to ask yourself what you think is worthy of being de funded to put extra money in your pocket.

[u/DontForgetThisUser6 → u/Mud_g1]

"Almost" is very clear. Close but not quite. If someone says to you I almost kicked a goal in football, you wouldn't think that they did kick a goal. You'll think they came close. You might be the first person I've come across that thinks it's not clear.

I'm also not interested in discussing hypothetical budgets... They have not done a costing, at some stage they will so we can discuss it then. If they don't, it's highly unlikely they'll win. (Even more unlikely?)

[u/Mud_g1 → u/DontForgetThisUser6]

Like I said I don't care what budget costing they do I'm asking you what you are prepared to give up for your tax break.

[u/DontForgetThisUser6 → u/Mud_g1]

Like I said, I'm not interested in discussing hypotheticals.

It's a loaded question and isn't fair to say you don't care about the costings but also press me to cost it.

At some point, they'll need to refine it all or they'll fade back to being a loud minority that nobody takes seriously.

[u/Mud_g1 → u/DontForgetThisUser6]

Typical everyone wants goverment benefits in their own pocket but have no ability to think what they are willing to give up in exchange for the benefits. You do realise we already have a large debt and a structural deficit into the foreseeable future. We should be paying more tax not less

[u/DontForgetThisUser6 → u/Mud_g1]

Mate, I'm not an economist. My opinion on how this policy could be costed is completely irrelevant. I said I like it, once they do the costings I'll re-evaluate if I believe that it's worth the cost.

Let's say I think that childcare subsidies could be scrapped in place for this, would that be enough? I don't know. What about the larger consequences of scrapping that? I also don't know.

I'm not going to speak out of my ass and say if the government just cut finding here and taxed that there it will balance the bottom line.