Sussan Ley's name change shocks the hosts of The Project

The unusual spelling of new Liberal leader Sussan Ley's name became the butt of a joke on Tuesday's The Project, after it was revealed it is spelled differently to her birth certificate.
Ms Ley added an extra 's' to her first name, which is still pronounced 'Susan', as a teenager based on numerology theory which suggests that the energetic vibrations of numbers can influence your life.
Numerology is not dissimilar to astrology but it uses names and letters rather than birth times to determine things like personality, success and the general trajectory of your life. The letters in your name correspond to different numbers, so altering the spelling can shift the energy of your name and the characteristics it brings with it, based on the theory.
Comedian Kate Langbroek brought up the theory on The Project after host Waleed Aly argued the fact Ms Ley was the only candidate running from the 'liberal' wing of the party means her selection likely had less to do with gender and more to do with the future direction of the party.
'You know what means it is a gender thing,' Langbroek rebutted, 'She's into numerology!'
When Sarah Harris went on to explain that Ms Ley changed the spelling of her name because of 'the numerology theory that an extra 's' would mean her life would never be boring,' she was met with exclamations of shock and incredulity from the rest of the panel.
They went on to show a montage of silly moments from her career in politics saying, 'If you're wondering what Sussan with the extra 's' is like, don't worry, I went through the archives today and compiled a highlight reel.'
It featured Ms Ley dressed as Tina Turner, talking about her dancing days and fumbling with a netball.
Ms Ley revealed her motivations for the name change in an interview with The Australian back in 2015 when she said: 'I read about this numerology theory that if you add the numbers that match the letters in your name you can change your personality.'
'I worked out that if you added an 's' I would have an incredibly exciting, interesting life and nothing would ever be boring. It's that simple.
'And once I'd added the 's' it was really hard to take it away.'
At the time, Australian numerology expert with a simple name change.
'Every letter has an energy vibration, and there's a really complex formula to use which is pinpoint accurate,' she said.
'With numerology, the day you're born tells you everything about you, and your date of birth and name should match.'
Ms Brazel says she has worked with people whose first names didn't match their birth date, but a simple change of a few letters, and a 'domino effect' of changes that followed, led to positive changes.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Age

2 hours ago

• The Age

The Libs have been handed a golden opportunity. Now, watch them stuff it up

One of the great entertainments of political commentary in Australia over the past decade-and-a-bit has been speculating on what new and inventive way the Liberal Party will find to comprehensively bugger itself up. I can't help thinking this must have crossed Treasurer Jim Chalmers' mind as he fronted the National Press Club this week to announce that he will undertake a process to develop a new productivity agenda. Chalmers' speech was solid, but then so it should be after so many have said the same things so often to so little avail. His words and aspirations have been written for him many times over, sometimes with hope, other times with emotions ranging from dull rage to despair. Sometimes even by the Coalition. We need productivity reform, politicians all know we need it, the media all know they know we need it, yet no-one ever does it. There's a simple reason for that: it's hard. The treasurer dwelt in his speech on why it's hard. Reforming an economic system requires trade-offs. Some choices will cost some people. They may or may not be recompensed in the rejig. Chalmers doesn't want the media to simplify economic reform by explaining it in terms of 'winners and losers', as they do after each budget, but there will be winners and losers in the short, medium, or long term as a result of any new tax system. And, naturally, the opposition will do what the name says on the tin. It will oppose. Given the last years of Liberal shenanigans, the real question is how it chooses to do that. In one scenario, Sussan Ley leads a team which analyses and criticises the government's productivity proposals to ensure the best outcome for Australia and Australians. Should they choose this version of their own adventure, there will be plenty of material to tackle. The prime minister has already shown that he has no instinct for making business more efficient or even any understanding that a healthy economy relies on the private sector, creating new wealth instead of just shifting existing money around. In the first term of the Albanese government, the size of the public sector grew relative to the size of the private sector, so now each private employee is supporting more public sector salaries. Loading Then-employment minister Tony Burke passed through an industrial relations bill which makes it harder for businesses to scale up without locking themselves into costly arrangements. Meanwhile, the 'Future Made in Australia' slush fund has been 'picking winners' (code for government making decisions on industries it poorly understands) by investing in bringing in an overseas quantum technology firm rather than backing existing quantum technology firms – ahem – made in Australia. Labor is even trashing its own legacy by changing the rules on the superannuation system it forced people to contribute to, undermining trust that the money you lock away for retirement is really yours for later. It's hard to see how a government which made policies of this sort a priority and prefers the public to the private sector will back a productivity agenda which turns Australia around. But one of the great paradoxes of politics is that sometimes you need the party which is seen to be the touchy-feely side to deliver hard-nosed decisions. Think Labour prime minister Tony Blair in the UK, Democrat president Bill Clinton in the USA, or chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in Germany, all of whom delivered welfare reform in the face of their countries' badly designed benefits systems, which were creating disincentives to work.

Sydney Morning Herald

2 hours ago

• Sydney Morning Herald

The Libs have been handed a golden opportunity. Now, watch them stuff it up

One of the great entertainments of political commentary in Australia over the past decade-and-a-bit has been speculating on what new and inventive way the Liberal Party will find to comprehensively bugger itself up. I can't help thinking this must have crossed Treasurer Jim Chalmers' mind as he fronted the National Press Club this week to announce that he will undertake a process to develop a new productivity agenda. Chalmers' speech was solid, but then so it should be after so many have said the same things so often to so little avail. His words and aspirations have been written for him many times over, sometimes with hope, other times with emotions ranging from dull rage to despair. Sometimes even by the Coalition. We need productivity reform, politicians all know we need it, the media all know they know we need it, yet no-one ever does it. There's a simple reason for that: it's hard. The treasurer dwelt in his speech on why it's hard. Reforming an economic system requires trade-offs. Some choices will cost some people. They may or may not be recompensed in the rejig. Chalmers doesn't want the media to simplify economic reform by explaining it in terms of 'winners and losers', as they do after each budget, but there will be winners and losers in the short, medium, or long term as a result of any new tax system. And, naturally, the opposition will do what the name says on the tin. It will oppose. Given the last years of Liberal shenanigans, the real question is how it chooses to do that. In one scenario, Sussan Ley leads a team which analyses and criticises the government's productivity proposals to ensure the best outcome for Australia and Australians. Should they choose this version of their own adventure, there will be plenty of material to tackle. The prime minister has already shown that he has no instinct for making business more efficient or even any understanding that a healthy economy relies on the private sector, creating new wealth instead of just shifting existing money around. In the first term of the Albanese government, the size of the public sector grew relative to the size of the private sector, so now each private employee is supporting more public sector salaries. Loading Then-employment minister Tony Burke passed through an industrial relations bill which makes it harder for businesses to scale up without locking themselves into costly arrangements. Meanwhile, the 'Future Made in Australia' slush fund has been 'picking winners' (code for government making decisions on industries it poorly understands) by investing in bringing in an overseas quantum technology firm rather than backing existing quantum technology firms – ahem – made in Australia. Labor is even trashing its own legacy by changing the rules on the superannuation system it forced people to contribute to, undermining trust that the money you lock away for retirement is really yours for later. It's hard to see how a government which made policies of this sort a priority and prefers the public to the private sector will back a productivity agenda which turns Australia around. But one of the great paradoxes of politics is that sometimes you need the party which is seen to be the touchy-feely side to deliver hard-nosed decisions. Think Labour prime minister Tony Blair in the UK, Democrat president Bill Clinton in the USA, or chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in Germany, all of whom delivered welfare reform in the face of their countries' badly designed benefits systems, which were creating disincentives to work.

ABC News

5 hours ago

• ABC News

Tash LC

Loading You're in very capable hands with this long-time NTS Radio Resident tonight on Mix in the UK, Tash LC is a DJ, collector, broadcaster and presenter who has been performing around Australia over the last fortnight, slinging big blends of traditional Afro-diasporic sounds and club played to packed-out dfloors around the world, including slots at Glastonbury, the Warehouse Project and Boomtown, and she's also the founder of label and club night Club Yeke where she spotlights music from the Global LC is stepping into the triple j booth for a sweat inducing mix tonight, featuring top-tier selections of funk, bass, garage, house and everything else in between. Turn it up and enjoy the ride!