Don’t Give Up on Labor or forget the Independents !
A response to Callen Sorensen Karklis’ article titled “Saving DEMOCRACY within the Labour [sic] Movement”.
Callen, I applaud your idealism and hope you find an outlet in the Greens movement ; even so, I would be inclined if I were you to keep up your ALP membership.
In recent times my own positive feelings towards the Greens have been eroded when they have chosen to align themselves with the coalition and One Nation to thwart government (usually Labor) policy. It may well be that the Greens were seeking the perfect in their policies and in their opposition to the ALP but be assured that the coalition and One Nation had no higher ambition than opposing for the sake of opposing.
You will recall that the Greens stood out on Kevin Rudd’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in 2009 because the Greens wanted more ambitious targets. By siding with a cynical climate change denying coalition and One Nation the CPRS went down in the Senate effectively blocking climate action for another ten years and in the interim emissions have continued to increase.
The new Labor government recently decided that the best way to tackle the national deficiency in public and social housing was to institute an ongoing fund similar to the Future Fund to be known as the ‘Housing Australia Future Fund’. The idea was that the government on our behalf would invest $10 billion and spend the projected annual earnings of $500 million – a modest earning rate of five percent per annum – to build 30,000 affordable, social housing projects each year. Initially the greens, egged on by their fair-weather friends in the coalition and One Nation, criticised the scheme as being reliant on ‘gambling on the stock market’ with no guarantee of achieving the projected half billion dollars each year. David Pocock, Jacqui Lambie and the Teals not wanting to see this project go down, negotiated with the government to guarantee that any shortfall in the yearly earnings would be made up from other revenue sources and that the half billion dollars would be a floor rather than a ceiling ; Pocock succeeded in having the government index the fund outlays to the CPI.
Still the Greens and their mates in the coalition blocked the passage of the legislation saying that the fund would take too long to start generating funds and that immediate action on public housing was required. The government then announced that an immediate injection of $2 billion would be made available, divided between the states and territories to get housing projects underway ; this was applauded by the HIA and the Master Builders but still the Greens held out and would not allow passage of the Future Fund legislation (fortunately this blocking did not delay the implementation of the $2 billion allocation). The legislation has now been deferred until the Spring session of parliament, in October, further delaying the full implementation of the Housing Australia Future Fund.
It should be noted that the improvements to the scheme, which the Greens are claiming credit for, were in fact achieved by collaborative work between the Teal Independents, the Jacquie Lambie Network and consistently the steady influence of David Pocock (yes, I’m a fan !).
But the Greens continue to hold out and demand that the government impose a rent freeze on all residential housing across the nation.
Naturally the coalition and their hangers on are delighted at this impasse and they know full well as do the Greens, that the federal government have no constitutional power to impose a national rent freeze even if they wanted to. Any rent freeze would have to be implemented by the states and territories who have already said that they would not do so. The ACT already have a rental cap system that limits rent increases to one hundred and ten percent of the CPI each year – so with a CPI at seven percent renters in the ACT expect rents to increase by 7.7% this year – some economists criticise the simplicity of the ACT scheme and are not convinced that it is viable or that it helps renters. Additionally, as some of the state Premiers have noted, rental controls will inevitably slow the flow of private equity into rental housing construction (build to rent) as investors look for other ways to make their money work for them, free of government controls.
For the record it should also be noted that the state and territory governments independently spend money on social housing which, collectively was $4.6 billion in 2021-2022.
The Greens in their current quest for the perfect at the expense of the good need to look at the motives of their bedfellows, the coalition and One Nation, who will avidly support blocking government legislation but not necessarily for honourable or noble reasons.
Callen, my advice, keep your ALP membership in your back pocket, it may prove useful in the future and don’t forget the Independents.
Good Luck !
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
51 comments
Login here Register here-
Baby Jewels -
Hotspringer -
Baby Jewels -
Harry Lime -
Perry -
Steve -
Terence Mills -
Baby Jewels -
David Baird -
Baby Jewels -
RomeoCharlie -
Brad Black -
Lyndal -
Baby Jewels -
Steve -
Baby Jewels -
New England Cocky -
ajogrady -
Harry Lime -
Baby Jewels -
M@S -
Steve -
M@S -
Roswell -
wam -
M@S -
Roswell -
Roswell -
New England Cocky -
Barry -
Clakka -
Harry Lime -
Harry Lime -
M@S -
Terence Mills -
Harry Lime -
Terence Mills -
Baby Jewels -
Baby Jewels -
Clakka -
wam -
Roswell -
wam -
Roswell -
Terence Mills -
Marcus James Lewer -
MJ -
MJ -
Terence Mills -
MJ -
Terence Mills
Return to home pageThe Greens have never “aligned”, “voted with” or “teamed up” with the LNP. Just because the Greens and the LNP have both voted against something does not mean any of these things. They both have their agendas and they couldn’t be further apart. For example Labor’s housing policy. The Greens want more and better for our most vulnerable. The LNP want nothing for our most vulnerable. Please cut the tired old Labor propaganda.
The Greens are on the right track and should stick to their guns.
If Labor had offered something useful to support homeless, this debacle would never have happened. Shamefully, Labor’s policy was to offer zero for at least one year, then $0.5b per year (at most!) Greens have improved that slightly, but been beaten to a pulp for it. Now compare that $0.5 billion for housing to $11.6 billion per year for fossil fuels, and $12 b for negative gearing, and still with the Stage 3 tax cuts on the table, it’s difficult now, to see Labor as anything but just another neoliberal government. Poor Australia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9AJR_OAFhM
I think there’ll be some sort of compromise on the HAFF,otherwise a lot of concerned voters will be considering their position.One thing that is not in dispute is Labor’s capitulation to the fossil fuel crime syndicate..their climate change policy needs to be taken out behind the shed and killed with an axe.If they don’t get real,and soon, they’ll be going the same way as the Dutton rabble.No amount of weaslese or smarm can disguise it’s total inadequacy.
Yet another defensive Labor attack on the Greens. Labor often votes with the Coalition, but no-one ever says they’re mates. HAFF is a timid offering that offers little more than a tick in the appropriate box. Albanese is definitely no Gough Whitlam.
So tired of rusted on Labor supporters who haven’t yet realised that their party is composed of rich elites who care nothing for the average aussie. Look at the policies–money for rich people tax cuts, money for corporate subsidies, money for the US war machine. No money for the 1 in 6 aussie kids who do not get enough to eat, no money for families living in cars (if they are lucky).The ICAC we voted for became a deal with Dutton for a secret NACC while whistleblowers are still hung out to dry, the war on corporate tax dodging has become an ignominous retreat and the HAFF was a political stunt so the ALP could pretend to be doing something at little expense to corporate welfare. Being similar to the MRFF it is a great way to funnel fees to friends in the finance industry. Michael West has some interesting thoughts on the holiday homes the HAFF will provide. The ALP/LNP duopoly represent the way that american neoliberalism believe people should be treated. Not the country I believe in. Never a Labor member but voted their way for 40 years. Never again.
HAFF is a timid offering that offers little more than a tick in the appropriate box.
A minimum of $500million a year, every year is just ticking a box ? You amaze me !
Terence, what amazes me, is that anybody thinks $500 million a year is going to be much help to hundreds of thousands of desperate people – when there’s $116 billion – over twenty times the amount for housing – for fossil fuels. Please tell us how they (you) justify that.
Well said, Baby! Added to which there’s the madness of AUKUS and Stage 3 tax-cuts and $350m to keep Nauru gulag open and, and and…….
Exactly David. Recently I posted a list just off the top of my head: “a few important things are up for debate or a real concern: The subs, their housing policy, removing transparency from the NACC, continuing to over-fund private schooling and underfund public schooling, the gas trigger, Whistleblowers abandoned, $11.6 billion to fossil fuels and their continued approval of new mines, and still having Stage 3 tax cuts on the table, to name a few. ” Overall, it paints the picture of yet another neoliberal government. I can’t see how people who claim to be left-leaning or progressive, can justify that.
So pleased to see the comments supporting the position I have held which is supportive of the Greens. I would make the same points as Baby Jewels, Perry and Steve that the fact Hanson and the Oppositiin oppose something doesn’t mean the Greens are siding with them. Let’s have some analysis of how many times Labor has sided with the Oppositiin to vote down something proposed by either the Greens or the cross benchers?
Terrence, have you looked at the cost of building a house recently? $500 million might get 2000 houses, though not in the NT or in remote communities where the need is huge. There houses cost about double ( or more) than the $250 000 I nominally used for my 2000 figure. Sure $500 million sounds like a big figure but in the context of the need, it barely ticks a box.
And now we see there might be a surplus of not 4.2 billion but 19.2 billion and, in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis Albanese is saying we will give them a big tick. This from the bloke who, in Oppositiin demanded a real increase to jobseeker and in government offered a pittance.
Much is being made of the pay increases coming into effect with the new Financial Year but inflation negates them and if you are a ComSuper recipient your pension is going up by 3.3%, taking you out the door backwards.
So Terence, how would you explain to the countless young homeless families and singles that the Labor party has got their backs, just not for a few years, because it’ll take every bit of that to build 30000 homes.
And let’s not forget that during covid (another national crisis) special covid protections to prevent evictions were introduced for millions of residential tenants through a National Cabinet.
And, let’s not forget that unforgivable support Labor gave the LNP on their grossly irresponsible $250 billion in tax cuts (which Labor are continuing to support) the vast majority going to people with more than one home, or multiple homes AND a holiday home! Those unconscionable tax cuts will begin at $20 billion a year and increase each year after that. The Greens wanted $5 billion a year for the homeless and the rent stressed.
Fair suck of the sav, Terence.
Politics needs to be pragmatic, and this is why various parties vote together on some matters. Sometimes there is the acceptance of an amendment ot two which makes some legislation more acceptable. But the Green Party knows that they can bring legislation undone by voting against it. The Greens do not have a good record on supporting ALP governments which are taking action but have preferred to join with the Liberals, Nationals, One Nation and other right wing parties to oppose and prevent less than what they see as perfect changes – thus this country’s failure on climate change so far can be laid at the feet of the Greens. You notice that they were ineffective in getting any movement on this issue during the Abbot/Turnbull/Morris years. On housing, Commenters are confusing the “for sale” price of a quality home with the build cost of a basic house. In NSW this is now around $350,000 and other states quite a bit less. Government housing does not come with much in the way of decor and basic appliances, and by definition is often located in a low status area. This means that the ALPs $500 million will lead to more housing than some are estimating. https://www.realestate.com.au/advice/how-much-does-it-cost-to-build-a-house/
Lyndal. I wonder at the notion that the Greens party must support Labor. They are not a coalition like the Liberals and National Party, Lyndal. They are a separate party and have their own policies, many of which are far more useful than Labor’s including their housing policy and climate change policies. So how do you say they do not have a good record on supporting the ALP? They are not expected to! Just as Labor do not support The Greens – they don’t have to. And as for laying this country’s failure on climate chage at the feet of the Greens, now I’ve heard EVERYTHING.
Greens don’t support the ALP like they should, Greens are responsible for no effective climate change policies, Greens will now be responsible for the massive homeless crises. It’s called a ALP narrative supported by corporate media because the Greens terrify the corporates. Another word that can be used for narrative is propaganda.
Steve. Yes. And who’s buying it? Sadly quite a few.
A distant perspective would have the Greens acting a LIARBRAL$ light and wanting to replace LABOR because the Greens are most unlikely to replace the establishment LIARBRAL$ & NOtional$ who buy their support with give away subsidies for just about anything.
.
Certainly the USUKA sub debacle and Stage 3 tax rorts are designed to prop up the faltering American economy by providing tribute and future cannon fodder for more unsuccessful military excursions to provide raw materials for American manufacturers.
.
Presently all political parties seem to have forgotten that Australian greatness lies in our egalitarian history rather than the ”Greed is Good” philosophy practiced in feral parliament.
Albanese’s AUKUS deal is giving effect to the biggest transfer of wealth outside this country, that has ever taken place in our history. It runs counter to
truth and reason. Truth and reason are treason in the empire of lies, deception, absurdity and insanity. The Albanese
AUKUS submarine pact is the ‘riskiest decision’ any government has ever made.
The $400billion AUKUS deal is Albanese’s and Labor’s Achilles Heel and will drive Labor’s “true believers” and young voters elsewhere with their vote.
Albanese lacks the self-confidence of a Gough Whitlam or a Don Dunstan, who routinely risked their careers by advocating progressive policy reforms. Albanese’s commitment to the ill conceived bogus AUKUS deal stands in stark contrast to the ethical leadership of the late Simon Crean. At the time, Mr Crean’s opposition to John Howard’s craven commitment to the Iraq war was a rare and inspiring example of statesmanship and integrity in leadership.
Prime Minister Howard had committed Australia’s young men and women to a war not yet declared, knowing all along that you couldn’t pull them out. It was done without the mandate of the Australian people, the Australian parliament or the United Nations.
It was an act of a subservient Australian leader keen to abide by the wishes of the US imperium, whatever its wisdom and whatever the implications for international peace and security. Albanese’s AUKUS deal shows no signs of Crean’s acumen and insight but all the signs of Howard’s folly and poor judgement.
Albanese Labor’s few attempts at reforms so far have been limited by timidity and insidious incrementalism, rather than making a bold break from the old politics. In fear of the Murdoch mob, it lacks ambition to free Australia from the grip of grifters exploiting regressive tax avoidance schemes and government subsidies to monster industries like the mining sector. Labor’s powerful right wing is dominated by the likes of Richard Marles. Marle’s old, white and stale ststus quo politics is writ large and is a massive handbrake on Australia progressing to its full and prosperous potential.
Albanese’s invidious $400billion AUKUS deal will turn what should have been a 3 to 4 term Labor government into minority government by the next election.
Voters who anticipated the Albanese government would be a courageously progressive government have so far been totally disappointed. They are unlikely and unwilling to be voting Labor next election.
@ajogrady..you bet your arse.The proverbial drover’s dog would have got up against Sideshow Scott and his government of crooks and fuckwits.The time for radical change was ripe for the taking,but we’ve ended up with brown cardigan wearing Camry drivers.
Yes, totally agree @ajogrady. Incredibly disappointing.
Propaganda as transparent as can be. The arrogance from Labor and it’s shills to think they can vomit this garbage onto our screens and think they’ll be believed. The comments show your time is up. You lied, you continue to lie and you treat us all with contempt.
Sadly, Baby Jewel, the majority who engage with MSM. But times are slowly changing. The youth I think have had enough, the boomers who think that the ALP/LNP mean Gough and Bob are passing and the disaster that Albanese/Chalmers/Marles have been for the average punter is starting to wake people up. The biggest threat is MSM narrative on “2 party preferred”, replacing the ALP with the LNP will be a bigger disaster. However the review of the Teals et al being conducted by the ALP is bound to come up with legislation passed with LNP support to further reduce who we can vote for to only 2 party preferred.
Why did you remove my comment? There wasn’t any swearing or direct personal attacks. Other posts here are much worse than my vanilla punch pulling effort. Are you silencing people Aim?
M@S, your comment wasn’t removed. It was waiting for a moderator to OK it.
A good read, Dance of the cuckoo, and spot on.
As incompetent as morrison was I can imagine the pomms and the septics had him by the balls and made it impossible for labor to back out of USUKA.
ps
Baby Jewell:
the bandit’s dream is to be deputy prime minister in a coalition and if labor doesn’t arm its grass roots with the loonies disaster they will no longer be the only party to rule in its own right.
ajo
50 years ago bloody ridiculous why not compare albo to curtin or hughes?
Senile bob voted twice with the lnp to defeat carbon price in 2009 giving us 10 years of effall.
M@S can’t imagine why anyone would remove your comment till tuesday
Roswell, yes i went off half cocked. Apologies.
It’s all good, M@S.
Once a person has had their first ever comment cleared by a moderator, all their future comments go through OK.
wam, what’s happening Tuesday?
@ ajogrady: After ”keeping the faith” through the past nine (9) dark years of COALition misgovernment, I agree that paying vassal state tribute to the USA (United States of Apartheid) in the USUKA suvb debacle is a stupid strategy, but remember that it was Scummo of the Secret Seven Ministries who set up the deal before he was despatched to the Opposition back bench from where he holidays overseas with his family in what many thinking Australian voters could reasonably conclude was ”contempt of Parliament”.
.
News Ltd MSM has been a factor in Australian politics since Whitlam denied Murdoch the Ambassador to the USA in the 70s, and the inner city cellar dwellers attending Labor ”focus groups” have not yet devised a suitable solution.
.
LIARBRAL$ Prime Ministers enjoy committing Australian troops to foreign conflicts subsidised by Australian funding because they then feel like the colonial ”benefactors to the nation” (really themselves as shown by Little Johnnie Hopeless receiving the US Order of What ever from Shrubya Bush for committing another generation of fine young Australians to somebody else’s imperialistic war), or as in Menzies, to assuage his personal resignation from the Australian Army commission on the first day of WWI.
.
Sadly IMHO, the Albanese LABOR government has failed Australian voters for your reasons and Defence Minister Richard Mediocre is probably employed well above his level of competence.
Looks like the zeitgeist for change has swept through this website big time. Labor has an Achilles heel, its support for the tax travesty that is Stage 3 tax cuts for those who don’t need tax breaks. $243B gifted over 10 years is average $24B/yr. If Labor spent $24B/yr on building NEW shelter plus the $0.5B they have on offer now, that’d be $24.5B/yr to tackle homelessness each year going forward.
Lots of people actually need a roof over their heads. Let’s help them, why not?
Money-grubbing politicians want an extra holiday home so why not buy it yourself, ok?
I back the working class everyday.
Our elected leaders could tell the public that tax cuts are indefinitely delayed until shelter is sorted.
Labor on its current trajectory is no better than LNP in terms of fair play, just more snake-like in hiding intentions.
Yes Terrence, well written.
I have prima facie no objections to The Greens in their format as a purposeful ‘protest’ party on matters ecological. I observe, however, that they appear over the last decade or so to have been beguiled by self importance and have frequently dropped the ball and forsaken gravitas whilst being riven by vicious internecine power-driven self destruction.
Other than their practice of protest, and often screeching objections to the mooted legislations and / or regulations of others, they fail to enunciate adequately or promulgate their alternative solutions viable within any overall scheme of industrial and economic management. To say that “The Greens terrify the corporates” is a tad precious; across the globe there is awareness that past actions of the likes initiated by Thatcher and Reagan and made worse by their RWNJ successors has given rise to a seemingly inextricable dysfunctional corporate stranglehold on governments, economies and citizens. The tide appears to have turned, and that stranglehold seems now to being loosened carefully and incrementally by the global body politic – with the main concern being to leverage the massive industrial and economic change to affect climate change abatement, whilst also addressing waste and the wellbeing of all.
The Greens’ manifesto is almost copybook Labor, except for the numerous areas it fails to address, and its idealistic inferences of a preference for a closed ‘circular’ economy, which from some perspectives could be seen as exclusionary and elitist. It fails to recognise that, despite it being difficult to navigate, there is much benefit to be had by all people of all nations participating globally, and that it provides all an opportunity to balance out strengths and weaknesses.
Sadly, their background commentary justifying their ‘blocking’ positions whilst obviously fashioned to elicit votes, is most often founded on poor research, selected and misapplied statistics, lack of first-principles assessments, lack of consideration of roll-on effects and integration into overall frameworks of implementation and governance. And even more sadly, that commentary is most often accompanied by immature snarkiness. The recent ‘affordable / social housing’ imbroglio being a classic example.
As The Greens have want to do, to put Labor in parity with the LNP, or as just another bunch of neo-liberal droogs is absurd. And in this current global ‘near-crisis’ mode, it is equally absurd to keep second guessing as absolutes, Labor’s medium term planks whilst they are busy trying to overcome the decade of inaction of the LNP government, and navigate and adjust to the pandemic-affected and very rapidly changing geopolitical and economic circumstances.
In all of this, to contemplate The Greens as the party of righteousness, and a rightly aspiring alternative government of potential, seems just a tad fanciful.
Clakka, I disagree,All the current government have done that is different from the last rabble is to present a more acceptable face,moderate the reactions to what should be happening,i.e. climate change policy,the ongoing approval of mining leases ,the continuation of the egregious imbalance of education funding for “private schooling’,subsidising the non tax paying mining conglomerates , approving planet destroying new mines and gas projectsThey have done some good things..the NACC is one,If you think the Greens are just a burr in the saddle,I’ve got news for you,the demographic is changing in the great unwashed,and what they neither need nor want is a watered down version of the previous pile of shit.
And for those people that like to blame the boomers for their misfortune,I’m in the very first of those boomers,born in 1946,and I absolutely loathe the generalisations accorded to us.
Should I mention the “Middle arm project” in Darwin harbour? Fuck Labor,they have been underwhelming,so far, most of their M.O. has been wimpish arse kissing of those they fear most.What happened to the Party of the people?You’d have to be extremely optimistic to think this lot is going to make the changes that are vital to our survival/Better than the last cretins? Who wouldn’t be?
Spot on Harry.
News Flash
Poms refuse to accept umpire’s decision…………………….Australia says ‘that’s not in the spirit of the game !’
For some light comedy relief, Rish! is not happy about the stumping either.I’d be more concerned about the 50 million poms that aren’t happy with him,or his walking dead party.
Harry, They apply the same logic to holding Julian Assange even though his extradition has been judged unlawful due to his mental health.
By the way this is what the poms are complaining about :
THE RULES
Under the rules, a batter cannot leave the crease until the ball is dead.
Often, a batter will check with the keeper – as easily as a look – to see if the ball is dead. But in the end, it is an umpire’s decision to make – and in this case, the umpire did not announce the end of the over or declare play dead.
According to law 20.1.2 of the MCC’s Laws of Cricket, “the ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batters at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.”
Clakka, you said the Greens “appear over the last decade or so to have been beguiled by self importance and have frequently dropped the ball and forsaken gravitas whilst being riven by vicious internecine power-driven self destruction.” Greens “screeching?” “the party of righteousness” So, doing their job properly, makes them all those things? I suggest you come back to earth, remove the blinkers, shave off the rust and stop choking on your Greens-hate. Then, perhaps all will become clear to you, as it has for so many other Labor voters, with open minds.
Clakka, please tell me how you justify $11.6b p.a. for fossil fuels in a climate catastrophe and $0.5b p.a. for housing, in a housing crisis.
@ Harry Lime and @ Baby Jewels.
I did not say I “hate” The Greens. Nor did I say I am a “Labor voter”, or any other type of voter. And, I too am a boomer, but seek not to disregard any other ‘generations’ or dwell in hate as it is enervating and tends to blur objectivity and function. I made observations of The Greens’ behaviour. I certainly couldn’t begin to offer you my thoughts as to the various matters you cite, the majority of which I have researched deeply as is my want. In the alternative, I would be quite happy for you to indulge me with your own alternative detailed costed manifestos with timelines complete with cause and effect. Best Regards.
sorry roswell, I was still on a high from Houston.
The oblique reference to tuesday, for MatS is that is our rubbish collection day.
It was a beautiful Houston rocket, wam. I’ve watched the launch (and landing) a hundred times.
Rossleigh,
one of my crows broke ranks with great joke:
Huston, the bombers have a problem.
I think you meant me, wam.
Good story though.
Probably the most significant outcome of the Fadden byelection at the weekend is the trouncing received by the Greens who, according to the AEC tallyroom saw their first preference vote go from 11,353 in the 2022 federal election :
https://results.aec.gov.au/27966/Website/HouseDivisionPage-27966-159.htm
To a miserable 5157 at the weekends’ byelection :
https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionPage-29422-159.htm.
I’ve included the URL’s as they didn’t seem right to me but take a look for yourself.
According to John Black, election analyst for the Financial Review this about-face was a protest from the renters and young families of Faddon against the Greens policy of opposing and blocking the federal government’s attempts to tackle the social housing deficiency through the Housing Australia Future Fund.
Black wrote yesterday :
“The Green strategy of voting with the Coalition against Labor’s housing reforms almost halved their primary vote in Fadden and damaged the ALP, but boosted the Coalition and the Pot Party [Legalise Cannabis Party], who’d be delighted if only they could work it out what happened, man.
The supposed beneficiaries of Mad Max’s strategy [the Greens housing spokesperson Max Chandler-Mather] – renters – swung to the Coalition candidate Captain Feathersword, with lesser swings to the Pot Party. It’s always party time on the Gold Coast.
The renters of Fadden swung against the Greens big time, and against Labor, via a loss of Green preferences, explaining most of the overall swing against the ALP. As Max would say: HOW DARE THEY!
This display of undergraduate stupidity and hubris from the Greens is going to flatten their primary vote across the country, if Fadden is any guide.
The Greens bombed out big time in Fadden, exposing the stupidity of their deals with the Coalition to block construction of more homes, while the Voice referendum, now dropping to minority support in the opinion polls, could even be losing the support of the voters it is supposed to benefit.”
The Greens are going to have to re-think their strategy on social housing and recognise that $500million [minimum] a year, every year, indexed to the CPI is not such a bad plan to start tackling the housing issue. To continue to join with the Liberals and One Nation to block the legislation in the Senate is not going to win them any friends or assist the dire situation renters are facing nationally.
The Greens are hopeless campaigners. They have an inability to cut through the lies and propaganda from Labor. All the result of the Fadden by-election proves is people are gullible, don’t have the time nor inclination to look at the facts themselves and see behind the spin.
This is more an example of why Australia is a disaster than a failing of the Greens policies.
The Greens need better campaigners and need to find better ways to communicate otherwise rags like the garbage one quoted above will continue to vomit their agenda based lies and the LibLab right wing neo cons can continue their treacherous ways unfettered.
Annd before Terence Mills tries once again to deceptively steer the narrative away from facts and towards made up “Laborfacts”, here’s a couple of very informative videos that will clear up any confusion one might have. The first is about the Fadden by-election and the extraordinary conclusions being drawn by people that may or may not want to deceive you.
The second is straight up facts about Labor’s horrible housing plan. It won’t take long to watch them but it will then shield you from disingenuous people telling, what I’m sure are, unintentional lies.
It seems posting links is frowned upon.
Please ignore all spin and go to Swollen Pickles YouTube channel and watch his last two videos.
He’s a better journalist than all the MSM hacks combined.
You’ll get an accurate and well explained account of Labor’s terrible housing policy and also an account of what the Fadden by-election actually means.
Interesting spin in your videos, MJ.
Your first video notes that the Greens first preference vote in Fadden was 11,353 in 2022 and fell to 5159 (now 5237) at the 2023 byelection ; then by some unexplained magic you suggest that if the Legalise Cannabis vote of 6189 was added to the actual Greens 2023 vote you come up with 11,300 which takes you back to where you were in 2022 – what are you smoking, man ? So many questions arise : are you contemplating a coalition with the pot party ? are your supporters in Fadden so superficial that they abandon Green values for the weed ?
You again repeat the tiresome trope about ‘Labor gambling $10 Billion on the stock exchange’ to achieve the return of five hundred million dollars each year, indexed to the CPI. But then your crazy video goes on to say that the first house would not be completed until 2025 so you want to spend the ten billion straight away and have no continuing housing future fund.
The Housing Australia Future Fund as envisaged would be a regulated investment fund similar to the ‘Future Fund’. You have chosen to highlight the fact that the Future Fund achieved a return of 1.1% during one year at the height of the pandemic when interest rates were at an all time low. In their market update the Future Fund noted that :
“Over the past decade the Future Fund has delivered an average annual return of 9.1% against
a target of 6.8%. Since 2006, with an initial contribution of $60.5bn, the Fund has grown to
its present $202.8bn at the end of March [2023], without any further contribution from the Federal
Government.”
The HAFF has a target annual return of 5% on a government investment of $10 Billion and should easily achieve this 5% annual return but if it doesn’t the government have said that they will top it up.
The reason why the first house won’t be built until 2025 (your video gloat) is because the Liberals, The Nationals, One Nation and The Greens have decided to block the passage of the HAFF legislation – hello !
Thanks to the good negotiating skills of the Teals, Jacquie Lambie Network and David Pocock the Labor government have agreed to pump in $2 Billion to get housing construction underway immediately in anticipation of their future fund potentially becoming bogged down in the Senate and possibly leading to the Double Dissolution of our parliament : after the Greens performance in the Faddon byelection do you seriously want a DD ?
The question really comes down to what do the Greens really want beyond disruption and delay in our legislative processes.
MJ I believe the above to be facts freely available on the public record, please be specific in your critique.
Give up Terence, your article has been shown to be garbage, you’ve tried all kinds of spin and even distraction.
The HAFF is a dud. Labor are liars and neo con right wingers who govern for foreign governments, personal enrichment, their donors, and Australia’s one percenters.
To everyone else that may stumble across this travesty of Australian journalism, ignore everything that Terence and I have said. Just go and read the facts from reputable sources. Everything here is almost Murdoch worthy.
Seems that federal Labor and the states are not in favour of the two year rent freeze idea being floated by the Greens. Albanese has indicated that it is not Labor policy to interfere with ‘free markets’ and that imposing a rent freeze would not increase the availability of rental properties. He maintains that the fundamental equation of supply and demand applies and supply is lacking due to the building slump during the pandemic : we have to build more public and social housing.
The Greens continue to insist that a rental cap is part of the solution and they seem enamoured of the ACT approach where rental increases on residential properties are limited by ACT law to 110% of the CPI. So, this means that if the CPI is at 7% the annual increase in rent cannot exceed 7.7%. The problem with this is that it provides an incentive for landlords to consider this as a mandate : e.g. a landlord who may not have been considering a rental increase would almost certainly come onboard for the statutory annual limit.
Economists have also noted that by freezing rents for two years as demanded by the Greens would not only not increase the supply of rental properties but would create a disincentive for investors to venture into ‘build to rent’ investments.
But, it appears that the government, in addition to the $2 billion building accelerator previously announced yesterday agreed to provide the states and territories with a “new home bonus” of up to $3bn if they help reach an updated target of 1.2m new homes over five years.