this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2025
37 points (97.4% liked)
Australian Politics
1699 readers
36 users here now
A place to discuss Australia Politics.
Rules
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone.
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australia (general)
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you ever needed evidence that Labor has abandoned its traditional position of being the party of the Union Movement:
Also wow, absolutely fuck Labor for this one:
These are positions as self-reported by the parties.
Here's my result:
Not sure why it puts me more economically conservative than the Greens but more socially left. I answered a stronger position than the Greens every time my position was different from theirs on an economic issue, including saying "much more" to wealthier people's taxes and "much less" funding for private schools and private healthcare.
I also found myself more moderate than the Greens on some social issues, like I said "somewhat agree" on "Political parties should commit to running at least as many women candidates as they do men", where the Greens say "strongly agree". My take is that anywhere from a 40–60% balance is reasonable, but that also it's important to take into account other factors like racial background, sexuality, and occupation. It's also important to consider where they're running. It doesn't matter if two thirds of your candidates are women, if the men are in all of the safest seats. Labor, at the last election, if they had taken that strategy, would have had 101 women candidates and 50 men, but would have ended up with 50 men in Parliament and only 27 women...
I think you're mixing up the axes! You are economically to the 'Left' (on the left-right axis) of the Greens, but slightly less socially progressive (up-down axis).
You're reading it as an upside down version of the normal Political Compass, which would make sense (though not sure why you'd flip it rather than just using the Political Compass as it is).
But if you read the axes as they're actually labelled by the ABC, the x-axis is labelled "social" and the y-axis is "economic".
I can see how it can be confusing. There probably are better ways to label this.
But basically, the lines are not axes. They are quadrant "dividers". So the line labelled "Economic" divides the Left and the Right half. So your position is further left economically than the Greens.