It's a bit dangerous to define left and right by political parties. It could just as easily be the case that the parties have switched sides. Or the move away from the coalition is the same across all age groups and reflects specific policies. The ABC itself certainly seems confused. They are happy to support Islamic terrorists if there is any way to paint them as victims. They are happy to promote racism and corruption if it favours aborigines. But they are loathe to support democracy, human rights etc in an even handed manner. And they do all this by attempting to re-writing the narrative as some kind of woke, fake-left BS. I think there are some far more subtle and interesting trends behind this than how the ABC has attempted to spin it.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-11-26/millennials-rewriting-the-rules-of-australian-politics/106050836

Quote:

They will change their minds when they have to live in a car -

no housing is affordable.

Thanks Albo.   

Bobby. wrote on Dec 6^th, 2025 at 9:21am:


That will only hasten the drift from the major parties.

In Oz (with its preferentail voting system), that allows Labor to be elected with only c. 30% of the primary vote (same as the Coalition), while former Coal-ition voters splinter to Teals and One Nation.

But the Greens' vote isn't growing; people don't want governments to increase taxes.

The drift will continue if Labor can't house more people before the next election, with anti-immigrant people going to One Nation, and pro net zero people going to teal independents. 

Don't see how you can look at recent elections and define a meaningful trend. In this case all you really see is the fact that the Liberals put forward no viable options. Labor put up a list of poor options and the Liberals mostly put up no option at all.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 7^th, 2025 at 10:35am:


The millennials & GenZers fell for all the free (taxpayer funded) stuff.
So they were bought. Great policy.

In 1993-94, people over sixty earned private incomes equal to just 41 per cent of those of eighteen-to-sixty-year-olds. By 2002-03, this had risen, and in the most recent decade it climbed further to 65 per cent. Indeed, after taxes and transfers are taken into account, the position of those over sixty improves even more: the after-tax income of older Australians has risen to 95 per cent of working-age incomes.

The disparity is starker when comparing those over sixty to young adults aged eighteen to thirty. Over the past decade, the older cohort has earned around 11 per cent more in private income ($72,000 versus $64,000 in 2022 dollars). But the tax and transfer system amplifies this gap: their after-tax income is now around 60 per cent higher than that of young adults.
...
The cumulative effects of economic stagnation, unaffordable housing, and slower career progression mean young Australians aren’t forming families. They stay single for longer, have children later, and most end up having fewer children than they would like.

The average number of children women want is 2.35, and the average number men want is 2.22. The actual fertility rate is much lower, at 1.48. We need to narrow the gap between desired and actual fertility through targeted pro-child policies.


Some policy recommendations we at the Menzies Research Centre explore in our forthcoming report on intergenerational inequality include: income tax splitting for families, and starting to tax families as a whole; indexing tax brackets to inflation; tax-deductible newborn expenses; childcare subsidy deregulation to improve affordability and flexibility; building more homes by cutting planning red tape; lifting construction productivity through competition and regulatory reform; fast-tracked visa pathways for tradies to fill skill shortages; capping international students at 20 per cent per course; pegging immigration rates to the rate of new home construction; rebalancing the immigration intake back towards skilled migrants.

Gnads wrote on Dec 8^th, 2025 at 1:08pm:


Recollection?

You probably haven't heard of Ken Henry, who was talking about 'intergenerational theft' a decade ago, ie tax policies favouring boomers.

Millenials and GenZers are indeed facing never owning a home; the Libs policy hasn't advanced much since Hockey's  "go get a higher paying job" comment. 

The Greens want more public houses to stabilize house prices, but the electorate  shuns higher taxes....

Quote:


A cheap comment; you again prove your ignorance and bias,  ignoring the substance of mothra's post.   

'Deplorable'. 

I get why the millennials would want change.
I'm not sure moving left is the right move.

The millenials are in a tough position. They aren't as big a voting block as the boomers.
And the boomers who are mostly retired are going to be very much wanting to preserve the status quo.
That includes the leftie boomers who are retiring with super and often a paid off family home.

They are basically very wealthy and the millenials are very poor.

The correct thing to do would be to include the family home in the assets test for the pension.
Reduce the pension
Stop the 1/2 price rates and rego and cheaper medications and power for the pensioners and offer those sort of benefits to the millenials.

I would even go so far as to say, young workers should pay NO income tax til they have earned their first 250 k.

Unfortunately by moving left , this isn't what they will get.

Mundani in NY  got voted in by young people who were looking for change.

But his way of paying for all the social programs will be to print money.
Just like chalmers and all the rest.
Just like Trump.

And when you print money you ALWAYS inflate asset prices.
The EXACT  thing millenials don't have.

The only answer is for the entitled retired people to voluntarily hand over some of their wealth.

They ( the boomers) are so selfish and entitled, it won't happen.

Hopefully young people refuse to work in nursing homes and hospitals caring for these selfish fat twats.
That would be a way of hitting back