> Uh, there is glaring sunlight between Labor and liberal in Australia at a federal level. Look at their history of fiscal policy. Carbon tax, NBN, selling off public assets etc. It's rubbish to say they're not that different.

The "they're all the same" argument in Australia is a very common talking point you see on the ABC and "left-leaning" (actually corporatist) outlets like The Project. Folks who tune in are inundated with this crap.

The ABC's idea of balance is to feature the viewpoint of the Lib/Nats (to cover the right-wing) and the Greens (to cover the left-wing). Labor gets all of the criticism for "not being left enough" by the Greens and "being too far left" by the Lib/Nats. You even see the Murdoch papers making both arguments simultaneously.

> State level is where they are all the same.

Maybe, but I doubt a Labor NSW state government would've privatised the vast majority of WestConnex before construction began. Or engaged in outright corruption by giving discounted land to developers who then gave them kickbacks.

That's fair, state level they're all as corrupt as each other, but Labor is still a union base. Libs are more cosy with banks and business in general.(and pro privatisation)

I dunno about the left saying that though. I see it most from people who aren't really into politics in general justifying their lack of interest in voting. Definitely agree on abc having a weird split identity, but that's due to external pressure and a lack of funding.

I think uninterested voters who say it are indeed thinking of the parties habits of acting for and on behalf of proprietary interests. Their complaints don't follow up with policy statements but with complaints about handing out favors to their mates.

I think that at a state level you get substantially different programs, but public and commercial journalists basically act like covering state politics is an unreasonable attack on their credibility, so it's quite true that state politicians act corruptly.