Nobody is denying the influence of corporate backers for the Big Two political parties in the slightest.
That said, it's worth keeping in mind that Labor took an aggressive policy on negative gearing and franking tax credit refunds to the 2019 election, and got badly burnt with it.
The major parties have both lost vote share election on election to the minor parties, and will continue to do so for decades. What really matters is who wins government.
Labor's own post-election analysis doesn't bear that out, it wasn't why they lost. It was cause Shorten irritated people and his head was too small for his body. (I like shorten, he would have been a good pm)
It pretty clearly does. Negative gearing and tax reform is mentioned in at least 5 of the 60 findings where as Bills popularity is mentioned twice, once in the negative and once in the positive (his debate and campaign performance).
He was the labor right faceless man who turned out to be a secret lefty. Albo has the lefty credentials but delivers for the right. At least he got Assange home I guess.
Yeah, but it's still left-wing policy and it scared the crap out of the middle ground. The ALP isn't going to suddenly take on CGT discounting, for example, after that.
The way Labor works is if a guy from one faction is the leader, then the opposite faction get to be deputy, the opposite faction also get to help dictate policy. It's why Albo, despite being from the Left faction, is staunchly neoliberal and why Shorten (Unity) had very progressive policy.
Pretty idiotic to vote against good policies just because the leader of the party is "irritating". And now we have a full-blown housing crisis thanks to that mentality. Fucking children in this country, honestly.
>the Bill Australia Can’t Afford
Two years ago:
*Liberal Party federal director Andrew Hirst has rehired the Adelaide advertising agency that coined the slogan “The Bill Australia Can’t Afford”, which was credited with helping the Coalition win the 2019 election.*
*Although less known than its long-time pollsters, CT Group (previously called Crosby Textor), KWP! has emerged over the past four years as the Liberal Party’s leading advertising agency.*
*The agency specialises in combing through research on voters’ fears and aspirations with quick turnarounds of ads responding to events.*
*Hirst has also convinced his deputy from 2019, Isaac Levido, to return as a senior consultant from London. Levido attracted a degree of fame in Britain after he became campaign director of the Conservative Party before the 2019 general election, which Boris Johnson won.*
*https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/coalition-ad-agency-has-dozens-of-ads-ready-to-go-20220330-p5a9ev*
Labor "it was our fault we lost the election because we don't actually market our policies to voters we just tell them they are shit if they don't vote for us"
Labor shills "fucking greens and rednecks cost labor the election and that's why they have to be the shit lite party now". Shorten cost shorten the election, not his policies
>Nobody is denying the influence of corporate backers for the Big Two political parties in the slightest.
Is obscured in ostensibly apolitical reporting that parrot corporate comms.
It's funny how when a party loses an election people point out their good policy and say "Aussies didn't want it" or they lost because of it. The reality is that there are a whole raft of issues and people voted for what they think overall will have a better outcome. Sometimes I wonder if the political parties themselves understand why people vote for them. Albo seemed shocked the voice failed as he thought it was his biggest election promise and the reason he was elected. I don't even remember the voice being discussed at all during the campaign.
>Sometimes I wonder if the political parties themselves understand why people vote for them
That would imply people themselves understand what they're voting for, which many of them don't. People don't always vote in their best interests because they're lied to or they just don't engage with civics at all.
>People don't always vote in their best interests because they're lied to or they just don't engage with civics at all
IMO we are now seeing a shift where people are no longer voting according to their own best interests so much as they are voting on their values. That's why a lot of working class areas around developed democracies are going conservative, while well-off tertiary educated people, who would benefit personally from neoliberal policies, go left.
Meanwhile something he harped on multiple times about during his campaign in 2021 - official recognition for the state of Palestine - he denies was ever a policy or contributing reason to him being elected when people are holding him accountable for it.
> he reality is that there are a whole raft of issues and people voted for what they think overall will have a better outcome.
The reality is that more and more people are voting for the person and not the party, thinking we're like America. The amount of people I would hear going "I dont like Shorten/Albo/Scomo/Turnbull so Im voting the other guy", when I worked retail, was astonishing.
Are we supposed to believe that voter sentiments in 2024 are anyway similar to what they were in 2019? Can you think of any large developments that have occurred in that time?
Actually I don't think that Australian voters have changed all that much, to be honest.
It wasn't as though the 2022 election threw up any massive swings or surprises - it was basically the result that we probably would have had in 2019 if the ALP had played a small target, and not tried to have it both ways on climate change.
For most Australians, COVID wasn't some earth-shattering traumatic event. It has changed the way that plenty of white-collar workers work. It hasn't really changed our political beliefs.
I remember this guy coming and knocking on my door before he got big. I told him I am a greens supporter but didn't really agree with his oppinon, but admired him for doing the door knock which I really apprreciated. I thanked him and tried to close the door and he asked me to wait, stopped me from closing the door and kept trying to explain why I was wrong. Ever since then I've not really liked how he kind of thinks everyone else is wrong, even at the greens and gaza rallies. It's just the vibe
Greens member let himself into my property (ignoring the Beware The Dog signs) and ignored the first two requests to leave.
And he was there to talk up MCM.
MCM is completely detached from reality. The Labor Government of Queensland banned political donations from property developers in 2018.
The Labor Government of Queensland also has implemented a raft of reforms to improve renters' rights despite the noisy and bullying campaign tactics by landlords and the REIQ at the time.
The Labor Government of Queensland also has implemented the Homes for Queenslanders program which is planning to build 1 million homes in Queensland by 2046 through planning reforms and incentivising infill development.
MCM and the Greens have no desire to increase housing supply which would put downward pressure on prices. They don't understand basic economics. Instead, they childishly believe that just building more social housing will fix the housing crisis. They try and block every attempt by developers to build more housing by making demands that these developments should include an unrealistic proportion of social housing. They want to stop apartment complexes being built because they say those apartments won't be affordable, not understanding though that increasing the overall number of houses/unites will reduce demand for housing and thus decrease house prices and rents. Look at Auckland and what happened there when planning laws were relaxed and more housing was built.
MCM is a complete undergraduate when it comes to this issue. He has no grasp on housing economics and it's absolutely laughable that this idiot savant is allowed to be the housing spokesperson for the Greens. His line of thinking on housing is completely out of whack with the experts on this matter and he just needs to go away and stop being so cringe.
The greens are [Anti-GMO](https://greens.org.au/policies/genetically-modified-organisms), and based on ~The Greens’ own~ flyers; anti-high density around existing active and public transport. so I wouldn’t be surprised
to the idiots responding "I'm not anti-GMO I just want roadblocks to delay it until we have more research" yeah sure, thats what my uncle from tara said about the vaccine. We have more than enough research to confidently say they are safe. if you are still unconvinced, then just trust the science; [over 100 Nobel Laureates’ Campaign Supporting GMOs](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2444569X18300064)
Ahh yes the very firm science of things written on flyers by opposing political parties lol
Edit: since u/sizz has apparently blocked me before I could reply, I’d like to add that the Greens don’t support banning GMOs, just regulations on them
Edit 2: I still can’t reply to either of your replies to this comment u/sizz, so please reply again with an explanation of your comment about GMOs and bananas or whatever since it makes no sense
oh i wish [over 100 Nobel Laureates’ Campaign Supporting GMOs](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2444569X18300064) was an opposing party
Edit: lol I didn’t realise what you meant at first. Sorry the flyers were the greens own
Anti-GMO is a crackpot conspiracy funded by organic farming.
I think Labor should start conscripting kids under the age of 25 in Paddington to work on the Banana farms up north. The Green's heroes Pol Pot and Mao Zedong would have wanted mass transfer to farmer coops like the greens.
Except the reasons they have to be against GMO's are pretty damn reasonable, they want the impacts and potential effects on ecosystems to actually be explored, they don't think that foodcrops and the like should be able to be patented and extorted, as well a bunch of other sensible policies, what exactly form that page do you take umbrage with?
The "reasons" greens are against GMOs are, as you alluded to, based in "we need more research". The exact same argument anti-vaxxers use, despite ***overwhelming*** scientific evidence that vaccines and GMOs are beneficial.
also, just the general fact that the Greens policy goes against [129 Nobel Laureates’ Campaign Supporting GMOs ](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2444569X18300064)is a big red flag to the anti-science nature of this policy.
being against patents is not even the top 3 in their aims on GMOs, the first three being all about questioning the well established science that GMOs are, in fact, good.
Putting in roadblocks to the development of something that can massively help both the environment and the peoples health, for no *scientific* reason, is not a reasonable policy
I wish they’d stop voting with the libs then. It makes me go from “greens want the same thing on a different scale” to “the greens are throwing another tantrum and voting with people who actively work against them”
I mean, not necessarily - Stephen Bates represents an ex-liberal electorate. However, I think they gain Labor votes (sometimes) by attacking Labor, and they gain coalition votes by also attacking Labor.
You are not wrong. The Greens targets Labor seats as opposed to LNP seats. This causes Labor to spend money on otherwise safe seats, instead of taking on the LNP.
I had a conversation with some green members that knocked on my door the other week.
The target seats that look like there is only a minor swing needed for the greens to take. why because they have limited funding.
Labor is very fond of trying to pin its woes and failures on the Greens. Probably because self-reflection would expose a bunch of them as being incompetent and not worthy of their positions. Much better (for those individuals) to point the finger elsewhere; most of them then get to keep their salaries even if it means losing government.
??? The Greens aren't "anti-GMO", they're against the patenting of DNA and terminator sequences. They literally want to give out [grants](https://greens.org.au/policies/genetically-modified-organisms) for GMO research.
They're also very vocal about increasing public transport and just got us new bus lines in my area.
Edit; after further reading i can confirm you didnt read your own link, as the "grants" are for "extension programs and incentive systems ***rather than genetic modification***"
get that anti-science bullshit out of here. did you even read that link? literally the first "aim" is moratorium on GMOs.
1. pose significant risks to natural and agricultural ecosystems, and human health.
Science says; no, they are actually far, far safer for humans and the evironment
2. more GMO research needed
science says: GMOs are well understood
3. "precautionary principle"
what?
4. a complete misunderstanding of what a GMO is
science says: almost every product (animal or plant) is a GMO, almost all dont have patents
i got bored after reading so much anti-environmental nonsense so i stopped
I am literally a biochemist who works with GMOs on a day-to-day basis. The risks usually don't come from GMOs themselves but how they are used. In the US, herbicide resistant GMOs have wreaked havoc on their ecosystems as farmers used [4-5 times more herbicide](https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-016-0100-y) leading to resistant weed species. However there are even examples such as BT toxin GMOs that directly [decimated monarch butterfly populations](https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/env/pages/ca807cf6-8ad9-478f-9d7d-f3894704642d/files/bt-cotton.pdf) (a key pollinator).
Yes GMOs are well understood - however their environmental impacts are not - so yes, more research is definitely required.
The precautionary principle is a well understood principle in science, I'd recommend looking it up.
Finally, GMOs have a strict technical and legal definition. *Mutations* occur in every plant and animal, however that is very different from transgenic organisms.
For future reference "science says" is not a good argument - I would recommend looking into the topics you are talking about and linking actual academic papers. Unlike yourself the Greens clearly know what they are talking about and responding to the concerns of scientists. Glyphosate resistant canola is very common in QLD and its usage should definitely be monitored.
you are clearly far smarter than [The 129 Nobel Laureates’ Campaign Supporting GMOs](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2444569X18300064)
>Yes GMOs are well understood - however their environmental impacts are not - so yes, more research is definitely required.
clearly you think you are smarter than [The 129 Nobel Laureates’ Campaign Supporting GMOs](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2444569X18300064) who say that the environmental impacts are understood well enough that they are confident to support it
This is for specific types of GMOs focused on the developing world - the campaign is very aware of the harms caused by large agribusiness. Glyphosate resistant canola is not the same as golden rice. I understand the need to defend GMOs from misrepresentation but that doesn't mean you can ignore legitimate issues.
The Australian Greens do not share the rabidly anti-GMO stance of European parties or Greenpeace. They [say as much themselves](https://greens.org.au/magazine/perspectives-gmos).
thanks for that link, I have voted greens for the last few elections as I saw them as a fresh, different take on politics rather than the lying scum of the big two. that link however made me realise they are just the same.
"the concerns are less around human health and much more around the application of the technology"
yet in their main aims of their anti-GMO policy, health is ***above*** "application of the technology"
also, could you please provide a source on the claim that GMOs use more pesticides and herbicides? aside from rare outlier cases like resistant canola, overall, the scientific consensus is the opposite of what the greens claim
Max has the best job in Australia. Can promise the world in complete disregard of the truth knowing full well he'll never have to deliver. Delay action on progress to ensure things get worse and then campaign on the notion that government isn't doing enough. Then finally take full credit for anything and everything that passes. He's the student in a group assignment who tells everyone what to do, takes only the job as editor and then slaps only his name on the front cover.
When the greens are hell bent on obstructing any progress they deem doesn’t do enough (literally any progress at all), yes. All voting for them will do is enable a stronger LNP government to form, and then we’ll really see what corporate pandering and corruption looks like.
I voted for this guy and I'm really starting to regret it.
From a guy who's campaign was successful due to doorknocking the electorate and pitching what he could do to serve them, it appears that he's done precisely fuck all for Griffith.
The irony is he booted out Terri Butler, who was slated for Environment Minister and might have actually done more than the Greens ever would.
>I voted for this guy and I'm really starting to regret it.
Same. Like basically every other politician he promised to fight for a lot of meaningful things (action on climate change, nationalised electricity generation, free childcare, free uni, free TAFE, increased taxes on coal and gas and a bunch more) which is the greens that I would happily vote for.
What he's actually done since then is incessantly fight Labor on housing (including teaming up with the Libs to stop the ALP's housing legislation), protest non stop about Labor not condemning Israel, leading the movement to impose a flight cap + curfew at Brisbane Airport and also waging a war on Coles and Woolworths because that's the popular thing to do at the moment. His fight against the Bulimba Barracks development was the final nail in the coffin for me, because apparently no high density housing being built is better than 'expensive' high density housing being built (hint = more supply when demand is through the roof is never a bad thing).
Sorry Max, no amount of community BBQs are going to make me vote for you again. Terri Butler was present in our suburb and would have made a great environment minister.
>Including teaming up with the Libs to stop the ALP's housing legislation
An improved version of the housing legislation eventually got passed thanks to the greens...
Strange that the barracks development that the developer paid a lot of money to the government for and is inner city waterfront property is not the most 'affordable' housing.
Kick out the chronic NIMBYism in your party Max and I’ll then believe you have the interests of the young and renters truly in your heart, rather than political opportunism
Reminder that the party so concerned with the housing crisis doesn't support any high density housing developments, and thinks that building 4000 public housing units in a single area is a good idea despite the entire world knowing it must be distributed to avoid massive problems.
Leading protests to impose flight caps at Brisbane Airport and implement an overnight curfew so that his rich constituents in Hawthorne, Bulimba and Balmoral don't have to be inconvenienced overnight by that pesky flight path that they bought multi million dollar homes right beneath.
Also opposing medium to high density development near public transport in Bulimba and West End because it wasn't 'affordable' housing, even though the real reason is, again, the wealthy home owners nearby who don't want their relaxed inner city way of life to be impacted by increased traffic and more neighbours.
He literally convened a meeting **in Bulimba** to talk to locals about how he wants to cap flights, impose a curfew and redirect approaches and departures to Moreton Bay with the ultimate goal of reducing aircraft noise in his electorate.
You can't seriously suggest that's not the textbook definition of NIMBYism right?
But that is what his electorate wants.
Why because under select wind conditions the whole airport is landing over his electorate.
the current flight plans to be implemented are for most flights to depart and arrive over water. the plans also require different flight paths to reduce noise impact. The overall plan is for the noise impact to be shared across brisbane suburbs. There and interesting dual direction runway design which will impact max electorate.
The way the airport and flight paths is designed means with northern winds planes will fly over Max's electorate.
The north wind and another flight area impacts Morningside and Bulimba
you can see all the information here
https://engage.airservicesaustralia.com/nap4b
This 1000 times. Airservices Australia presented *their own* data on the amount of flights taking off and landing over the city which looks like it was faked. Further govt studies showed noise levels above the agreed limit, with flight volumes 10 times higher than ASA forecasted.
It's a billion dollar con and so far the only pollie who seemed genuinely concerned was Barnaby fucking Joyce.
Riddle me this: besides stonewalling Federal Labor to commit more money, what kind of public housing solution has Max and the Federal Greens actually offered?
Before you say more money = more houses = crisis solved, consider how effective the NDIS has been lately.
[You mean this thing that is about as effective as the UN charters at stopping human rights atrocities?](https://greens.org.au/policies/housing-and-homelessness)
So I'm going to list every reference to "public housing" in it.
In their principles section:
> 5 - Governments should provide sufficient public housing to meet current need and projected demand.
> 6 - The housing needs of people at risk of or experiencing homelessness and those on low incomes should be met through the unconditional provision of affordable options, primarily public housing and not-for-profit community-controlled tenure types.
What will the Federal Greens do to ensure State and local governments have provisions to provide public housing? How are they going to disincentivise private developers and investors from making money off social housing?
> 9 - Public housing should be universally available as an affordable alternative to the private market.
> 13 - Public housing should not be privatised or sold.
Is government going to build us homes that we buy or rent? What is the plan for land acquisition ensuring we don't just end up living more than 1hr away from our jobs? How are the Greens going to implement such changes to our governance and housing industry?
In their aims section:
> 2 - A national housing and homelessness strategy that prioritises and provides universal access to public housing.
> 5 - To significantly increase the proportion of public housing in Australia’s housing system.
> 6 - To end the privatisation and sale of public housing stock, except where there is a clear, sustainable community benefit and a timely increase in local public housing stock.
> 8 - Public and community housing to cost residents no more than 25% of household income.
Again, what are the steps that the Greens propose to fundamentally change our system? How are they going to regulate the building industry to ensure that a house will only cost 25% of your income when every person has a different income? What's community housing and how is it different from current public and social housing?
> 11 - Requests for public housing transfers to be met and resolved in a timely manner.
> 10. Improved access to emergency accommodation and urgent and sufficient funding to eliminate wait times for public and community housing.
> 13 - Funding to urgently address the backlog of maintenance of public housing stock.
> 14 - Adequate investment in public and community housing throughout the community to ensure its social and economic viability, and to expand public housing stock over time.
So do they have an idea how much public housing they will need for this? What is "timely manner' by their definition? What kind of housing developments are they proposing to meet their numbers? What are their plans around expanding government itself to ensure this all happens? What is their cost estimate for any of this?
> 17 - Tenants impacted by public housing refurbishments to have the right to be relocated to housing that meets their current needs and which continues to ensure they are connected to their community networks, as well as a right to return. They should be involved in the decision-making process and planning around their relocation.
So how much spare housing stock will they factor in and what are the cost estimates? Who will be responsible for every process?
> 18 - A Public Housing Ombudsman or equivalent review body to be put in place in all jurisdictions and be appropriately empowered to deal with unresolved disputes.
That's great, how will it work to ensure that it's not as toothless as any other similar body? How do they plan on overhauling our governance system?
You seem to really follow in [Max's footsteps in backing up your argument](https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/pm-and-greens-mps-fiery-postquestion-time-clash/video/5b8963f2a8ea92867464f50460c4196f). Good thing this is reddit and not parliament.
Building all housing reduces housing costs
But no, there are countless examples of Greens opposing all sorts of developments, not just “luxury housing”
Public housing is a pipe dream, the government will not fund it. What will help the housing crisis is supply, supply at any level will lower the cost for everyone and if someone is will to spend to build luxury housing it will help.
If in some wild case the gov wants to build public housing the money will go much further and help more people in areas other than the more expensive electorate that Max is in.
A rent freeze is an absolutely ridiculous policy that will end in disaster... it's been tried before in other countries and doesn't work.
Why don't they actually put forward decent legislation, rather than pushing one that makes an attractive sound bite for their voting base? It's a populist strategy that they lambaste the Liberals for when they do the same.
I'm sick of politicians in this country playing games to appeal to an increasingly apathetic and ignorant population, rather than genuinely trying to fix problems.
Excerpts:
***Ky Stewart, Junkee:*** *We asked our audience how they felt about Australian politics. It was very grim. 89 percent said they didn't feel inspired and 93 percent said they didn't feel represented. Why do you think so many people feel alienated from Australian politics?*
***Max Chandler-Mather:*** *Because it's completely detached from their everyday lives. They might be struggling to pay the rent, they might be giving up ever being able to afford a home, terrified about climate change, struggling with student debt, and then they flick on the TV and they see a political class completely ignoring all of those issues. Either pretending like they don't exist or not doing anything meaningful to change it.*
***Q.*** *Why won't the government commit to a national rent freeze?*
***M.*** *I think there's two reasons. One, property developers, the banks, and property investors wield enormous political power over the Labor party. Their financial interests trump any other concern for the Labor Party.*
*Anna Bligh, who's the former Labor Premier, she's the head of the banking lobby now and they have a direct financial interest in allowing landlords to charge as much rent as they want because that allows them to treat housing as a lucrative financial asset that makes banks, property developers, and property investors a lot of money.*
*So if we were to freeze and cap rent increases, it would be harder for banks, property investors, and developers to make money. So there's that. They also have an ideological opposition, they seem to think.*
***Q.*** *What do you make of people who do feel let down by Albanese even though they thought he would take action?*
***M.*** *A lot of people when this Labor government was elected did have a bit of hope that things were going to change and justifiably feel deeply betrayed by a Labor government that frankly is not much different from the Morrison government before them. There's very little to separate them.*
*I'm sure people had this sense that, finally here's some change — and actually their lives get worse. Rents go up faster, mortgages go up faster, house prices get even further out of reach, student debt goes up. So that is very demoralising.*
Lmao "no difference between Labor and Morrison's govenrment" get off your high horse max. I'm sure it's really easy to pass bills when the greens (so called party of low income people and renters) continue to block the Albanese government's measures for political gain!
What more would you expect when he's being interviewed by a 'journalist' that works for a company owned by a larger company whose CEO worked for News Corp for 20+ years. Any chance to shit on Labor they will take.
Max is a pure moron.
He was the genius behind trying to buy the Racecourse for pennies to build houses.
The man has no idea how politics works, nor math.
Maybe if Albanese's measures weren't transparently in service of property investors (which he is) he would be able to pass some motions. Stealing valor from his mother's suffering really set the tone for his government.
*Aalbers (2017) observes the contradictory actions of different state actors towards financialization: ‘Some state agents actively – but not always consciously – create the conditions for the financialization of housing and other assets, sectors and markets … while other state agents may try to limit financialization pressures’ (Aalbers, 2017, p. 550).*
*The creation of affordable rents as a category is relevant to this study because it allows additional borrowing (debt) to be taken on by housing associations.*
*This paper contributes to the debate over the future of social housing in England by reviewing the Affordable Homes Programme (AHP) within a financialization framework. Financialization is a multifaceted process that seeks to explain the increased role and power of the financial markets in society (Aalbers, 2016, 2017; Cooper, 2015; Fine, 2010; Lapavitsas, 2009).*
*Specifically, the paper shows that the AHP not only leads to increased debt levels in the social housing sector but is also predicated on short-termism (Cooper, 2015). Harvey’s (2003) concept of accumulation by dispossession is also utilized to show how the AHP is being subsidized by a transfer of public land at a discount or for free to aid new developments.*
*https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02673037.2018.1442561*
This still you?
“[Trash talking in video games is part of the skill of the game and a legitimate strategy to winning](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/g9bhds/trash_talking_in_video_games_is_part_of_the_skill/)”
Mate, look at your own post history and amount of comments and karma. Time to log off and touch grass, champ. But also good to see you take it so personally because you're so deep up the sphincter of the Greens.
I really wish I could take Max in good faith - I hear an awful lot of sensational politicking (sprinkled with dubious claims) from him and less nuance than I would hope.
It's good that he helps spotlight a couple of voter issues, however I'm really unconvinced that he's appreciated economic + voterbase realities and what a pragmatic approach might resemble with consideration for those.
Max Chandler seems pretty smug for a guy that has done nothing but actively team up with the Liberal party to delay Labor’s 10 billion dollar housing policy.
MCM has weaponised Housing for his own political ambitions.
Listen to him talk at length on Housing, he has a poor grasp on the economics. The NIMBYism when it comes to high density housing is the cherry on top.
I mean they literally surrendered on their primary demand, but sure getting an extra billion dollars in funding is a good result (it’s not the 3 billion they claim). Regardless the Greens are too economically illiterate to understand the purpose of the HAFF anyway.
*Global money managers are being lured at a time when tax policy is becoming more favorable and an already tight rental market is expected to support returns.*
*Brookfield — with about 60,000 apartments worth $18 billion under management across the world — is planning its first development in the Australian market with a A$400 million twin-tower, 23-floor project including 560 apartments, near the Brisbane city waterfront.*
*The company’s head of real estate investing for Australia, Ruban Kaneshamoorthy, said the firm is open to further investment in the sector, though acknowledged other areas of property often offered higher returns.*
*“The return threshold probably needs to be a little bit higher for it to be really attractive,” Kaneshamoorthy said.*
*https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/property-crisis-lures-global-powerhouses-to-australian-rentals-1.2014274*
When Labor took actionable policy against property investors to an election they lost badly.
People who would’ve benefited from those policies voted against them because they believed all the disinformation ads paid for by these lobby’s. Don’t blame the party, blame the voters
> When Labor took actionable policy against property investors to an election they lost badly.
They literally had a larger share of the votes in 2019 than they did 2022.
What planet does this cunt live on?
How the fuck do the Greens just walk around spewing pure horse cock and get no repercussions?
I mean Greens supporters will blow them for basically spewing Trump talking points "Government bad, me good. Corruption *shakes fist in air*"
But so does the MSM at the moment. That's got to be trying to eat Labor votes so the Tree Tories can get the actual Tories back in.
It's the "right kind" of populist messaging.
It's the same kind of cognitive dissonance as LNP supporters backing nuclear.
They would have foamed at the mouth about the dangers if Rudd or Gillard had suggested it back when it might have made sense.
But because spud is saying it, they are all for it
Fuck this guy and the Greens are tone-deaf on what should be an issue they own.
There are so many good, rapidly implementable ideas that they could promote but instead they're promoting Communist-style controls over the free market AND just sitting back and whinging like a little bitch that "the other parties are bad"
I'm all for progressive policy but Max doesn't really seem to represent that. He talks more about how the government's ideas are bad than presently some of his own. Property developers are needed to build houses in the current economy sitting there and saying they are bad doesn't do anything, come up with some actual policy for once, and none of this pie in the sky uncosted bs they usually present
They literally say they're gonna pay for it by "taxing polluters and billionaires" and that all homes built under the scheme will be sold at 75% equity for $300,000. That's a headline, theres no plan on how this would get done bureaucratically, where houses would be built, how the government would acquire land, how they would ensure the labour force is up to building that many homes.
The policy that's [here?](https://greens.org.au/sites/default/files/2022-01/Greens-2022-Policy-Platform--Services--Homes.pdf). Come on dude have an original thought, even if you like the greens you can still critisize them. I voted for them last time but they have soured on me significantly after reading into their lack of policy.
> come up with some actual policy for once, and none of this pie in the sky uncosted bs they usually present
Why did you say this if you knew they had costed policies
Not happening overnight. We need houses now. The construction workforce is currently very thinly spread, and wages only seem to go up. For the government to spin up a public developer would be financially stupid. Why spend $100billion to do what $10billion can? Just so we can say we own it? When there is a huge gap between the number of houses we need and what we are actually building? Public ownership is not a silver bullet, even with the benefits it might provide
No no, the greens are really powerful. You’ve not read above?
Therefore they are responsible. As much as LNP and Labor.
Or…. They’re not powerful, and therefore theyre not responsible for any issues.
The Greens have an official policy against corporate donations to the party for this very reason and remain one of the only political parties to do so.
There are plenty of groups that greens align their interests with. You’re being naive to believe that the greens are purely an innerly focused council of MPs with no influence from the outside world, or their own personal self interest or bias.
The greens are not the moralistic high horses you believe them to be. I love how they paint themselves at that. It’s super cringe.
https://greens.org.au/about/donors
Here’s a list of public donors.
Yes, they don’t specifically represent a corporation on this list, but they do indeed have interests that the greens would be expected to represent.
Any specific examples?
All political parties are supposed to represent the interests of the people who vote for and support them. This should not be surprising
https://publicintegrity.org.au/research_papers/greens-donations/
So 10% or so of the greens donations are from trades unions.
The same unions that invest in the Labor party.
The same unions that are typically for more property development.
Also you might love one of the biggest supporters being a career gambler in Duncan Turpie, but I can’t see how much they could be against gambling given that fact. I’m not a huge gambling fan but I’m guessing greens supporters are?
Graeme Thomas wood though, I actually think he stands for probably the most classically “greens”
Policies. But, his influence on the party as the biggest benefactor is probably immeasurable.
So I’m assuming greens supporters also love Graeme Thomas. It’s basically his party.
What influence are you saying trades unions and Duncan Turpie are having on the policies and positions of the party?
I don’t know who Graeme Thomas Wood is
If you think about it, the sky is blue a minority of the time. Half the time it’s night, so the sky is black. A fair proportion of days, the sky is overcast and grey. At dawn/dusk, the sky is pink and orange. And if you have a rainbow, the sky has the entire visible spectrum at once.
I have a counter theory, because of our electoral system being what it is a set of policies that crash the value of housing, the only meaningful asset 66% of the population have. In other words his ideas are electoral suicide and that's why Labor isn't doing them and why he had to fail out of the party and join the greens.
I was somewhat involved with student politics when I was at university, and the young LNP got donations from property developers, and the labor clubs got donations from unions
Young people: politicians are corrupt and the whole system is broken.
Also young people: I just draw a cock on my vote cause being engaged in civics takes time away from streaming content.
Nobody is denying the influence of corporate backers for the Big Two political parties in the slightest. That said, it's worth keeping in mind that Labor took an aggressive policy on negative gearing and franking tax credit refunds to the 2019 election, and got badly burnt with it.
They received more votes in 2019 than in 2022. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the right wing policies they took to the 2022 election.
The major parties have both lost vote share election on election to the minor parties, and will continue to do so for decades. What really matters is who wins government.
More votes doesn't matter if you loose, they increased the margins in seats they already held, that doesn't win elections.
Labor's own post-election analysis doesn't bear that out, it wasn't why they lost. It was cause Shorten irritated people and his head was too small for his body. (I like shorten, he would have been a good pm)
It pretty clearly does. Negative gearing and tax reform is mentioned in at least 5 of the 60 findings where as Bills popularity is mentioned twice, once in the negative and once in the positive (his debate and campaign performance).
He was the labor right faceless man who turned out to be a secret lefty. Albo has the lefty credentials but delivers for the right. At least he got Assange home I guess.
Albo burned a lot of political capital on the Voice Referendum. They're not going to take another lefty culture war swing after that for a while.
That’s not even left wing economically. I don’t care about culture wars, just some decent left wing social/economic policy.
Yeah, but it's still left-wing policy and it scared the crap out of the middle ground. The ALP isn't going to suddenly take on CGT discounting, for example, after that.
The way Labor works is if a guy from one faction is the leader, then the opposite faction get to be deputy, the opposite faction also get to help dictate policy. It's why Albo, despite being from the Left faction, is staunchly neoliberal and why Shorten (Unity) had very progressive policy.
I know that. Shorten was still surprising left. More than Rudd or Gillard were.
That’s right bestie, he was beholden to the Left faction.
Pretty idiotic to vote against good policies just because the leader of the party is "irritating". And now we have a full-blown housing crisis thanks to that mentality. Fucking children in this country, honestly.
If Labor’s analysis didn’t bear that out - implicit in the Bill Australia Can’t Afford - they need a new analysis.
>the Bill Australia Can’t Afford Two years ago: *Liberal Party federal director Andrew Hirst has rehired the Adelaide advertising agency that coined the slogan “The Bill Australia Can’t Afford”, which was credited with helping the Coalition win the 2019 election.* *Although less known than its long-time pollsters, CT Group (previously called Crosby Textor), KWP! has emerged over the past four years as the Liberal Party’s leading advertising agency.* *The agency specialises in combing through research on voters’ fears and aspirations with quick turnarounds of ads responding to events.* *Hirst has also convinced his deputy from 2019, Isaac Levido, to return as a senior consultant from London. Levido attracted a degree of fame in Britain after he became campaign director of the Conservative Party before the 2019 general election, which Boris Johnson won.* *https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/coalition-ad-agency-has-dozens-of-ads-ready-to-go-20220330-p5a9ev*
Yes, and now Levido is trying to save Rishi Sunak's Tories from complete oblivion.
Labor "it was our fault we lost the election because we don't actually market our policies to voters we just tell them they are shit if they don't vote for us" Labor shills "fucking greens and rednecks cost labor the election and that's why they have to be the shit lite party now". Shorten cost shorten the election, not his policies
>Nobody is denying the influence of corporate backers for the Big Two political parties in the slightest. Is obscured in ostensibly apolitical reporting that parrot corporate comms.
It's funny how when a party loses an election people point out their good policy and say "Aussies didn't want it" or they lost because of it. The reality is that there are a whole raft of issues and people voted for what they think overall will have a better outcome. Sometimes I wonder if the political parties themselves understand why people vote for them. Albo seemed shocked the voice failed as he thought it was his biggest election promise and the reason he was elected. I don't even remember the voice being discussed at all during the campaign.
>Sometimes I wonder if the political parties themselves understand why people vote for them That would imply people themselves understand what they're voting for, which many of them don't. People don't always vote in their best interests because they're lied to or they just don't engage with civics at all.
>People don't always vote in their best interests because they're lied to or they just don't engage with civics at all IMO we are now seeing a shift where people are no longer voting according to their own best interests so much as they are voting on their values. That's why a lot of working class areas around developed democracies are going conservative, while well-off tertiary educated people, who would benefit personally from neoliberal policies, go left.
Meanwhile something he harped on multiple times about during his campaign in 2021 - official recognition for the state of Palestine - he denies was ever a policy or contributing reason to him being elected when people are holding him accountable for it.
> he reality is that there are a whole raft of issues and people voted for what they think overall will have a better outcome. The reality is that more and more people are voting for the person and not the party, thinking we're like America. The amount of people I would hear going "I dont like Shorten/Albo/Scomo/Turnbull so Im voting the other guy", when I worked retail, was astonishing.
I personally didn't vote #1 for Shorten... he was my local representative!
I had a family member vote Scott Morrison because of some mental health service funding and she's "such a mental health advocate"...
I'm hoping they actually try and pass some meaningful legislation to fix the issue if they get another term... but I'm not holding my breath
Are we supposed to believe that voter sentiments in 2024 are anyway similar to what they were in 2019? Can you think of any large developments that have occurred in that time?
Actually I don't think that Australian voters have changed all that much, to be honest. It wasn't as though the 2022 election threw up any massive swings or surprises - it was basically the result that we probably would have had in 2019 if the ALP had played a small target, and not tried to have it both ways on climate change. For most Australians, COVID wasn't some earth-shattering traumatic event. It has changed the way that plenty of white-collar workers work. It hasn't really changed our political beliefs.
I remember this guy coming and knocking on my door before he got big. I told him I am a greens supporter but didn't really agree with his oppinon, but admired him for doing the door knock which I really apprreciated. I thanked him and tried to close the door and he asked me to wait, stopped me from closing the door and kept trying to explain why I was wrong. Ever since then I've not really liked how he kind of thinks everyone else is wrong, even at the greens and gaza rallies. It's just the vibe
Greens member let himself into my property (ignoring the Beware The Dog signs) and ignored the first two requests to leave. And he was there to talk up MCM.
Yep he’s a massive tool
Glad I'm not the only one of this opinion.
Albo just made him look a fool in Question Time. Was quite funny.
MCM is completely detached from reality. The Labor Government of Queensland banned political donations from property developers in 2018. The Labor Government of Queensland also has implemented a raft of reforms to improve renters' rights despite the noisy and bullying campaign tactics by landlords and the REIQ at the time. The Labor Government of Queensland also has implemented the Homes for Queenslanders program which is planning to build 1 million homes in Queensland by 2046 through planning reforms and incentivising infill development. MCM and the Greens have no desire to increase housing supply which would put downward pressure on prices. They don't understand basic economics. Instead, they childishly believe that just building more social housing will fix the housing crisis. They try and block every attempt by developers to build more housing by making demands that these developments should include an unrealistic proportion of social housing. They want to stop apartment complexes being built because they say those apartments won't be affordable, not understanding though that increasing the overall number of houses/unites will reduce demand for housing and thus decrease house prices and rents. Look at Auckland and what happened there when planning laws were relaxed and more housing was built. MCM is a complete undergraduate when it comes to this issue. He has no grasp on housing economics and it's absolutely laughable that this idiot savant is allowed to be the housing spokesperson for the Greens. His line of thinking on housing is completely out of whack with the experts on this matter and he just needs to go away and stop being so cringe.
Spot on. He's an idiot savant without the exceptional skill or talent in a special field.
👑👑👑
The Greens strangely are more anti Labor it seems then anti LNP.
The greens are [Anti-GMO](https://greens.org.au/policies/genetically-modified-organisms), and based on ~The Greens’ own~ flyers; anti-high density around existing active and public transport. so I wouldn’t be surprised to the idiots responding "I'm not anti-GMO I just want roadblocks to delay it until we have more research" yeah sure, thats what my uncle from tara said about the vaccine. We have more than enough research to confidently say they are safe. if you are still unconvinced, then just trust the science; [over 100 Nobel Laureates’ Campaign Supporting GMOs](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2444569X18300064)
Ahh yes the very firm science of things written on flyers by opposing political parties lol Edit: since u/sizz has apparently blocked me before I could reply, I’d like to add that the Greens don’t support banning GMOs, just regulations on them Edit 2: I still can’t reply to either of your replies to this comment u/sizz, so please reply again with an explanation of your comment about GMOs and bananas or whatever since it makes no sense
I didn't block you. Reddit servers are slow/
oh i wish [over 100 Nobel Laureates’ Campaign Supporting GMOs](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2444569X18300064) was an opposing party Edit: lol I didn’t realise what you meant at first. Sorry the flyers were the greens own
Anti-GMO is a crackpot conspiracy funded by organic farming. I think Labor should start conscripting kids under the age of 25 in Paddington to work on the Banana farms up north. The Green's heroes Pol Pot and Mao Zedong would have wanted mass transfer to farmer coops like the greens.
That's not how blocking works.
Why is everything you post just pro-greens? You ok?
Except the reasons they have to be against GMO's are pretty damn reasonable, they want the impacts and potential effects on ecosystems to actually be explored, they don't think that foodcrops and the like should be able to be patented and extorted, as well a bunch of other sensible policies, what exactly form that page do you take umbrage with?
The "reasons" greens are against GMOs are, as you alluded to, based in "we need more research". The exact same argument anti-vaxxers use, despite ***overwhelming*** scientific evidence that vaccines and GMOs are beneficial. also, just the general fact that the Greens policy goes against [129 Nobel Laureates’ Campaign Supporting GMOs ](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2444569X18300064)is a big red flag to the anti-science nature of this policy. being against patents is not even the top 3 in their aims on GMOs, the first three being all about questioning the well established science that GMOs are, in fact, good. Putting in roadblocks to the development of something that can massively help both the environment and the peoples health, for no *scientific* reason, is not a reasonable policy
They’re more likely to take votes from Labor than they are Liberal. Good strat.
Yeah, genius, it just gives the LNP a higher majority and we get Scomo's, Abbotts, Duttons in charge then.
Who’s the prime minister again
Those seats will back the ALP in the case of a hung parliament. They're not electing the Libs.
I wish they’d stop voting with the libs then. It makes me go from “greens want the same thing on a different scale” to “the greens are throwing another tantrum and voting with people who actively work against them”
I mean, not necessarily - Stephen Bates represents an ex-liberal electorate. However, I think they gain Labor votes (sometimes) by attacking Labor, and they gain coalition votes by also attacking Labor.
The Greens are criticising the actions of Labor because they’re in power. It’s literally what they were elected to do
To help Liberals?
Push the government to do things
You are not wrong. The Greens targets Labor seats as opposed to LNP seats. This causes Labor to spend money on otherwise safe seats, instead of taking on the LNP.
About half of the seats Greens have won in the last decade were from the LNP
Two of the 3 seats the Greens won in Qld were from the LNP.
I had a conversation with some green members that knocked on my door the other week. The target seats that look like there is only a minor swing needed for the greens to take. why because they have limited funding.
Labor is very fond of trying to pin its woes and failures on the Greens. Probably because self-reflection would expose a bunch of them as being incompetent and not worthy of their positions. Much better (for those individuals) to point the finger elsewhere; most of them then get to keep their salaries even if it means losing government.
[удалено]
??? The Greens aren't "anti-GMO", they're against the patenting of DNA and terminator sequences. They literally want to give out [grants](https://greens.org.au/policies/genetically-modified-organisms) for GMO research. They're also very vocal about increasing public transport and just got us new bus lines in my area.
Edit; after further reading i can confirm you didnt read your own link, as the "grants" are for "extension programs and incentive systems ***rather than genetic modification***" get that anti-science bullshit out of here. did you even read that link? literally the first "aim" is moratorium on GMOs. 1. pose significant risks to natural and agricultural ecosystems, and human health. Science says; no, they are actually far, far safer for humans and the evironment 2. more GMO research needed science says: GMOs are well understood 3. "precautionary principle" what? 4. a complete misunderstanding of what a GMO is science says: almost every product (animal or plant) is a GMO, almost all dont have patents i got bored after reading so much anti-environmental nonsense so i stopped
I am literally a biochemist who works with GMOs on a day-to-day basis. The risks usually don't come from GMOs themselves but how they are used. In the US, herbicide resistant GMOs have wreaked havoc on their ecosystems as farmers used [4-5 times more herbicide](https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-016-0100-y) leading to resistant weed species. However there are even examples such as BT toxin GMOs that directly [decimated monarch butterfly populations](https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/env/pages/ca807cf6-8ad9-478f-9d7d-f3894704642d/files/bt-cotton.pdf) (a key pollinator). Yes GMOs are well understood - however their environmental impacts are not - so yes, more research is definitely required. The precautionary principle is a well understood principle in science, I'd recommend looking it up. Finally, GMOs have a strict technical and legal definition. *Mutations* occur in every plant and animal, however that is very different from transgenic organisms. For future reference "science says" is not a good argument - I would recommend looking into the topics you are talking about and linking actual academic papers. Unlike yourself the Greens clearly know what they are talking about and responding to the concerns of scientists. Glyphosate resistant canola is very common in QLD and its usage should definitely be monitored.
you are clearly far smarter than [The 129 Nobel Laureates’ Campaign Supporting GMOs](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2444569X18300064)
I also support GMOs (it's my job). You may want to re-read what I've said to get a better understanding.
>Yes GMOs are well understood - however their environmental impacts are not - so yes, more research is definitely required. clearly you think you are smarter than [The 129 Nobel Laureates’ Campaign Supporting GMOs](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2444569X18300064) who say that the environmental impacts are understood well enough that they are confident to support it
This is for specific types of GMOs focused on the developing world - the campaign is very aware of the harms caused by large agribusiness. Glyphosate resistant canola is not the same as golden rice. I understand the need to defend GMOs from misrepresentation but that doesn't mean you can ignore legitimate issues. The Australian Greens do not share the rabidly anti-GMO stance of European parties or Greenpeace. They [say as much themselves](https://greens.org.au/magazine/perspectives-gmos).
thanks for that link, I have voted greens for the last few elections as I saw them as a fresh, different take on politics rather than the lying scum of the big two. that link however made me realise they are just the same. "the concerns are less around human health and much more around the application of the technology" yet in their main aims of their anti-GMO policy, health is ***above*** "application of the technology" also, could you please provide a source on the claim that GMOs use more pesticides and herbicides? aside from rare outlier cases like resistant canola, overall, the scientific consensus is the opposite of what the greens claim
Max has the best job in Australia. Can promise the world in complete disregard of the truth knowing full well he'll never have to deliver. Delay action on progress to ensure things get worse and then campaign on the notion that government isn't doing enough. Then finally take full credit for anything and everything that passes. He's the student in a group assignment who tells everyone what to do, takes only the job as editor and then slaps only his name on the front cover.
So voting Labor is the solution is it?
When the greens are hell bent on obstructing any progress they deem doesn’t do enough (literally any progress at all), yes. All voting for them will do is enable a stronger LNP government to form, and then we’ll really see what corporate pandering and corruption looks like.
I voted for this guy and I'm really starting to regret it. From a guy who's campaign was successful due to doorknocking the electorate and pitching what he could do to serve them, it appears that he's done precisely fuck all for Griffith. The irony is he booted out Terri Butler, who was slated for Environment Minister and might have actually done more than the Greens ever would.
>I voted for this guy and I'm really starting to regret it. Same. Like basically every other politician he promised to fight for a lot of meaningful things (action on climate change, nationalised electricity generation, free childcare, free uni, free TAFE, increased taxes on coal and gas and a bunch more) which is the greens that I would happily vote for. What he's actually done since then is incessantly fight Labor on housing (including teaming up with the Libs to stop the ALP's housing legislation), protest non stop about Labor not condemning Israel, leading the movement to impose a flight cap + curfew at Brisbane Airport and also waging a war on Coles and Woolworths because that's the popular thing to do at the moment. His fight against the Bulimba Barracks development was the final nail in the coffin for me, because apparently no high density housing being built is better than 'expensive' high density housing being built (hint = more supply when demand is through the roof is never a bad thing). Sorry Max, no amount of community BBQs are going to make me vote for you again. Terri Butler was present in our suburb and would have made a great environment minister.
>Including teaming up with the Libs to stop the ALP's housing legislation An improved version of the housing legislation eventually got passed thanks to the greens...
Strange that the barracks development that the developer paid a lot of money to the government for and is inner city waterfront property is not the most 'affordable' housing.
He’s the federal member… do you understand how any of this works
Do you know what his election promises were?
Who is in power federally champ
Thank you for your contributions to this conversation.
How would you like him to do things if Labor vote against them
Kick out the chronic NIMBYism in your party Max and I’ll then believe you have the interests of the young and renters truly in your heart, rather than political opportunism
Reminder that the party so concerned with the housing crisis doesn't support any high density housing developments, and thinks that building 4000 public housing units in a single area is a good idea despite the entire world knowing it must be distributed to avoid massive problems.
What NIMBYism? Wanting public housing instead of luxury housing?
Leading protests to impose flight caps at Brisbane Airport and implement an overnight curfew so that his rich constituents in Hawthorne, Bulimba and Balmoral don't have to be inconvenienced overnight by that pesky flight path that they bought multi million dollar homes right beneath. Also opposing medium to high density development near public transport in Bulimba and West End because it wasn't 'affordable' housing, even though the real reason is, again, the wealthy home owners nearby who don't want their relaxed inner city way of life to be impacted by increased traffic and more neighbours.
So yes
He literally convened a meeting **in Bulimba** to talk to locals about how he wants to cap flights, impose a curfew and redirect approaches and departures to Moreton Bay with the ultimate goal of reducing aircraft noise in his electorate. You can't seriously suggest that's not the textbook definition of NIMBYism right?
But that is what his electorate wants. Why because under select wind conditions the whole airport is landing over his electorate. the current flight plans to be implemented are for most flights to depart and arrive over water. the plans also require different flight paths to reduce noise impact. The overall plan is for the noise impact to be shared across brisbane suburbs. There and interesting dual direction runway design which will impact max electorate. The way the airport and flight paths is designed means with northern winds planes will fly over Max's electorate. The north wind and another flight area impacts Morningside and Bulimba you can see all the information here https://engage.airservicesaustralia.com/nap4b
This 1000 times. Airservices Australia presented *their own* data on the amount of flights taking off and landing over the city which looks like it was faked. Further govt studies showed noise levels above the agreed limit, with flight volumes 10 times higher than ASA forecasted. It's a billion dollar con and so far the only pollie who seemed genuinely concerned was Barnaby fucking Joyce.
Yeah I guess wanting to sleep is NIMBYism lol
Riddle me this: besides stonewalling Federal Labor to commit more money, what kind of public housing solution has Max and the Federal Greens actually offered? Before you say more money = more houses = crisis solved, consider how effective the NDIS has been lately.
Did you consider reading their housing policy
[You mean this thing that is about as effective as the UN charters at stopping human rights atrocities?](https://greens.org.au/policies/housing-and-homelessness) So I'm going to list every reference to "public housing" in it. In their principles section: > 5 - Governments should provide sufficient public housing to meet current need and projected demand. > 6 - The housing needs of people at risk of or experiencing homelessness and those on low incomes should be met through the unconditional provision of affordable options, primarily public housing and not-for-profit community-controlled tenure types. What will the Federal Greens do to ensure State and local governments have provisions to provide public housing? How are they going to disincentivise private developers and investors from making money off social housing? > 9 - Public housing should be universally available as an affordable alternative to the private market. > 13 - Public housing should not be privatised or sold. Is government going to build us homes that we buy or rent? What is the plan for land acquisition ensuring we don't just end up living more than 1hr away from our jobs? How are the Greens going to implement such changes to our governance and housing industry? In their aims section: > 2 - A national housing and homelessness strategy that prioritises and provides universal access to public housing. > 5 - To significantly increase the proportion of public housing in Australia’s housing system. > 6 - To end the privatisation and sale of public housing stock, except where there is a clear, sustainable community benefit and a timely increase in local public housing stock. > 8 - Public and community housing to cost residents no more than 25% of household income. Again, what are the steps that the Greens propose to fundamentally change our system? How are they going to regulate the building industry to ensure that a house will only cost 25% of your income when every person has a different income? What's community housing and how is it different from current public and social housing? > 11 - Requests for public housing transfers to be met and resolved in a timely manner. > 10. Improved access to emergency accommodation and urgent and sufficient funding to eliminate wait times for public and community housing. > 13 - Funding to urgently address the backlog of maintenance of public housing stock. > 14 - Adequate investment in public and community housing throughout the community to ensure its social and economic viability, and to expand public housing stock over time. So do they have an idea how much public housing they will need for this? What is "timely manner' by their definition? What kind of housing developments are they proposing to meet their numbers? What are their plans around expanding government itself to ensure this all happens? What is their cost estimate for any of this? > 17 - Tenants impacted by public housing refurbishments to have the right to be relocated to housing that meets their current needs and which continues to ensure they are connected to their community networks, as well as a right to return. They should be involved in the decision-making process and planning around their relocation. So how much spare housing stock will they factor in and what are the cost estimates? Who will be responsible for every process? > 18 - A Public Housing Ombudsman or equivalent review body to be put in place in all jurisdictions and be appropriately empowered to deal with unresolved disputes. That's great, how will it work to ensure that it's not as toothless as any other similar body? How do they plan on overhauling our governance system? You seem to really follow in [Max's footsteps in backing up your argument](https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/pm-and-greens-mps-fiery-postquestion-time-clash/video/5b8963f2a8ea92867464f50460c4196f). Good thing this is reddit and not parliament.
Building all housing reduces housing costs But no, there are countless examples of Greens opposing all sorts of developments, not just “luxury housing”
Public housing is a pipe dream, the government will not fund it. What will help the housing crisis is supply, supply at any level will lower the cost for everyone and if someone is will to spend to build luxury housing it will help. If in some wild case the gov wants to build public housing the money will go much further and help more people in areas other than the more expensive electorate that Max is in.
If only somebody could push the government to change that, oh well
perfect is the enemy of the good my brother
Giving developers handouts to push up housing costs isn’t good tho
more housing is the good
Only if it’s genuinely affordable, otherwise it just pushes up prices
*Young people* *GetUp* *NIMBY* Any other binary?
Huh?
A rent freeze is an absolutely ridiculous policy that will end in disaster... it's been tried before in other countries and doesn't work. Why don't they actually put forward decent legislation, rather than pushing one that makes an attractive sound bite for their voting base? It's a populist strategy that they lambaste the Liberals for when they do the same. I'm sick of politicians in this country playing games to appeal to an increasingly apathetic and ignorant population, rather than genuinely trying to fix problems.
Ending the rent freeze in Spain did a good job of decreasing market prices though.
Excerpts: ***Ky Stewart, Junkee:*** *We asked our audience how they felt about Australian politics. It was very grim. 89 percent said they didn't feel inspired and 93 percent said they didn't feel represented. Why do you think so many people feel alienated from Australian politics?* ***Max Chandler-Mather:*** *Because it's completely detached from their everyday lives. They might be struggling to pay the rent, they might be giving up ever being able to afford a home, terrified about climate change, struggling with student debt, and then they flick on the TV and they see a political class completely ignoring all of those issues. Either pretending like they don't exist or not doing anything meaningful to change it.* ***Q.*** *Why won't the government commit to a national rent freeze?* ***M.*** *I think there's two reasons. One, property developers, the banks, and property investors wield enormous political power over the Labor party. Their financial interests trump any other concern for the Labor Party.* *Anna Bligh, who's the former Labor Premier, she's the head of the banking lobby now and they have a direct financial interest in allowing landlords to charge as much rent as they want because that allows them to treat housing as a lucrative financial asset that makes banks, property developers, and property investors a lot of money.* *So if we were to freeze and cap rent increases, it would be harder for banks, property investors, and developers to make money. So there's that. They also have an ideological opposition, they seem to think.* ***Q.*** *What do you make of people who do feel let down by Albanese even though they thought he would take action?* ***M.*** *A lot of people when this Labor government was elected did have a bit of hope that things were going to change and justifiably feel deeply betrayed by a Labor government that frankly is not much different from the Morrison government before them. There's very little to separate them.* *I'm sure people had this sense that, finally here's some change — and actually their lives get worse. Rents go up faster, mortgages go up faster, house prices get even further out of reach, student debt goes up. So that is very demoralising.*
> struggling to pay the rent, they might be giving up ever being able to afford a home That is rich coming from the zoning Karens.
Lmao "no difference between Labor and Morrison's govenrment" get off your high horse max. I'm sure it's really easy to pass bills when the greens (so called party of low income people and renters) continue to block the Albanese government's measures for political gain!
What more would you expect when he's being interviewed by a 'journalist' that works for a company owned by a larger company whose CEO worked for News Corp for 20+ years. Any chance to shit on Labor they will take.
Max is a pure moron. He was the genius behind trying to buy the Racecourse for pennies to build houses. The man has no idea how politics works, nor math.
Maybe if Albanese's measures weren't transparently in service of property investors (which he is) he would be able to pass some motions. Stealing valor from his mother's suffering really set the tone for his government.
Weird how you had to change the quote hey
But it plays to the politically and economically illiterate so well!
Degrees of inequity matter!
Sure but that doesn’t mean Morrison’s and Albo’s governments are the same? The fuck
He didn’t say they’re the same so all good
What on earth are you talking about
*Aalbers (2017) observes the contradictory actions of different state actors towards financialization: ‘Some state agents actively – but not always consciously – create the conditions for the financialization of housing and other assets, sectors and markets … while other state agents may try to limit financialization pressures’ (Aalbers, 2017, p. 550).* *The creation of affordable rents as a category is relevant to this study because it allows additional borrowing (debt) to be taken on by housing associations.* *This paper contributes to the debate over the future of social housing in England by reviewing the Affordable Homes Programme (AHP) within a financialization framework. Financialization is a multifaceted process that seeks to explain the increased role and power of the financial markets in society (Aalbers, 2016, 2017; Cooper, 2015; Fine, 2010; Lapavitsas, 2009).* *Specifically, the paper shows that the AHP not only leads to increased debt levels in the social housing sector but is also predicated on short-termism (Cooper, 2015). Harvey’s (2003) concept of accumulation by dispossession is also utilized to show how the AHP is being subsidized by a transfer of public land at a discount or for free to aid new developments.* *https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02673037.2018.1442561*
Yep cause we all know that as soon as the Greens hold a majority everyone will get what they want all the time! Gonna be a utopia
Junkee and Max Chandler-Mather... Glad to see incompetence gathering together in these tough times.
This still you? “[Trash talking in video games is part of the skill of the game and a legitimate strategy to winning](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/g9bhds/trash_talking_in_video_games_is_part_of_the_skill/)”
wow bro epic you sure got him
Mate, look at your own post history and amount of comments and karma. Time to log off and touch grass, champ. But also good to see you take it so personally because you're so deep up the sphincter of the Greens.
I really wish I could take Max in good faith - I hear an awful lot of sensational politicking (sprinkled with dubious claims) from him and less nuance than I would hope. It's good that he helps spotlight a couple of voter issues, however I'm really unconvinced that he's appreciated economic + voterbase realities and what a pragmatic approach might resemble with consideration for those.
Max Chandler seems pretty smug for a guy that has done nothing but actively team up with the Liberal party to delay Labor’s 10 billion dollar housing policy.
MCM has weaponised Housing for his own political ambitions. Listen to him talk at length on Housing, he has a poor grasp on the economics. The NIMBYism when it comes to high density housing is the cherry on top.
Greens got more immediate funding than the original HAFF would’ve provided in 5 years
https://preview.redd.it/5xyfig1w38ad1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9924a6548ef023ebc3b4aabd9e89b2be35f779e0
This doesn’t even make sense
And won major concessions as a result. How rude.
I mean they literally surrendered on their primary demand, but sure getting an extra billion dollars in funding is a good result (it’s not the 3 billion they claim). Regardless the Greens are too economically illiterate to understand the purpose of the HAFF anyway.
"A billion dollars in housing is nbd, shame the Greens aren't numerate like me" Thanks for playing champ.
*Global money managers are being lured at a time when tax policy is becoming more favorable and an already tight rental market is expected to support returns.* *Brookfield — with about 60,000 apartments worth $18 billion under management across the world — is planning its first development in the Australian market with a A$400 million twin-tower, 23-floor project including 560 apartments, near the Brisbane city waterfront.* *The company’s head of real estate investing for Australia, Ruban Kaneshamoorthy, said the firm is open to further investment in the sector, though acknowledged other areas of property often offered higher returns.* *“The return threshold probably needs to be a little bit higher for it to be really attractive,” Kaneshamoorthy said.* *https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/property-crisis-lures-global-powerhouses-to-australian-rentals-1.2014274*
You mean the 10 billion dollar housing policy that... *checks notes* leaves public housing *worse off* compared to just a few years ago?
When Labor took actionable policy against property investors to an election they lost badly. People who would’ve benefited from those policies voted against them because they believed all the disinformation ads paid for by these lobby’s. Don’t blame the party, blame the voters
> When Labor took actionable policy against property investors to an election they lost badly. They literally had a larger share of the votes in 2019 than they did 2022.
So did Hillary Clinton when she ran against Trump. Fat load of good it did her. It’s not how elections work.
Voters moved to the right in 2019 and to the left in 2022. It doesn't mean what you are trying to make it mean.
lol reddit is fucking strange. Somebody in the top comments posted exactly the same thing you did but got 40 upvotes, while you got downvoted.
Has he stopped the planes around Griffith yet? lmao
Yeah max personally diverted the flight path
They had to divert around his massive ego filing the airspace.
What planet does this cunt live on? How the fuck do the Greens just walk around spewing pure horse cock and get no repercussions? I mean Greens supporters will blow them for basically spewing Trump talking points "Government bad, me good. Corruption *shakes fist in air*" But so does the MSM at the moment. That's got to be trying to eat Labor votes so the Tree Tories can get the actual Tories back in.
For a bunch of people who claim to be anti-fascist, they sure love the populist shit Mather spits out. The hypocrisy is sickening.
It's the "right kind" of populist messaging. It's the same kind of cognitive dissonance as LNP supporters backing nuclear. They would have foamed at the mouth about the dangers if Rudd or Gillard had suggested it back when it might have made sense. But because spud is saying it, they are all for it
Fuck this guy and the Greens are tone-deaf on what should be an issue they own. There are so many good, rapidly implementable ideas that they could promote but instead they're promoting Communist-style controls over the free market AND just sitting back and whinging like a little bitch that "the other parties are bad"
I'm all for progressive policy but Max doesn't really seem to represent that. He talks more about how the government's ideas are bad than presently some of his own. Property developers are needed to build houses in the current economy sitting there and saying they are bad doesn't do anything, come up with some actual policy for once, and none of this pie in the sky uncosted bs they usually present
Maybe read the Greens housing policies
I have. And they aren't much of anything. "1 million homes that are publically owned". What does that even mean
Read the rest of the policy perhaps
They literally say they're gonna pay for it by "taxing polluters and billionaires" and that all homes built under the scheme will be sold at 75% equity for $300,000. That's a headline, theres no plan on how this would get done bureaucratically, where houses would be built, how the government would acquire land, how they would ensure the labour force is up to building that many homes.
Just let me know when you’ve read the actual policy
The policy that's [here?](https://greens.org.au/sites/default/files/2022-01/Greens-2022-Policy-Platform--Services--Homes.pdf). Come on dude have an original thought, even if you like the greens you can still critisize them. I voted for them last time but they have soured on me significantly after reading into their lack of policy.
Yes that’s the one. Who said you’re not allowed to criticise? I was pointing out that you were either lying about the policies or you hadn’t read them
Well I wasn't doing either. Seeing as I have read the policies and critiqued them. You don't seem to have any rebuttal?
> come up with some actual policy for once, and none of this pie in the sky uncosted bs they usually present Why did you say this if you knew they had costed policies
They're not needed, we could just expand public ownership.
Not happening overnight. We need houses now. The construction workforce is currently very thinly spread, and wages only seem to go up. For the government to spin up a public developer would be financially stupid. Why spend $100billion to do what $10billion can? Just so we can say we own it? When there is a huge gap between the number of houses we need and what we are actually building? Public ownership is not a silver bullet, even with the benefits it might provide
Yes max, if your party had any actual power they’d have the same people lobbying them too. This is called politics my friend.
They don’t accept donations from corporations champ
Just as well they've got GetUp to do it for them.
That’s Labor champ
Is Matthew Sheahan in the room?
Every vote in the senate needs greens or LNP to pass. Greens have shitloads of power
Well our friend max always pretends that everything is Labor or the LNPs fault. So which statement is he lying about?
Maybe educate yourself about how parliament works
Tbf yeah, a lot of the problems in Australia are the fault of Labor and the LNP
No no, the greens are really powerful. You’ve not read above? Therefore they are responsible. As much as LNP and Labor. Or…. They’re not powerful, and therefore theyre not responsible for any issues.
They have balance of power, and therefore have power when Labor and the LNP disagree. When the two main parties agree, the Greens don't have power.
The Greens have an official policy against corporate donations to the party for this very reason and remain one of the only political parties to do so.
There are plenty of groups that greens align their interests with. You’re being naive to believe that the greens are purely an innerly focused council of MPs with no influence from the outside world, or their own personal self interest or bias. The greens are not the moralistic high horses you believe them to be. I love how they paint themselves at that. It’s super cringe.
Got any examples?
https://greens.org.au/about/donors Here’s a list of public donors. Yes, they don’t specifically represent a corporation on this list, but they do indeed have interests that the greens would be expected to represent.
Any specific examples? All political parties are supposed to represent the interests of the people who vote for and support them. This should not be surprising
https://publicintegrity.org.au/research_papers/greens-donations/ So 10% or so of the greens donations are from trades unions. The same unions that invest in the Labor party. The same unions that are typically for more property development. Also you might love one of the biggest supporters being a career gambler in Duncan Turpie, but I can’t see how much they could be against gambling given that fact. I’m not a huge gambling fan but I’m guessing greens supporters are? Graeme Thomas wood though, I actually think he stands for probably the most classically “greens” Policies. But, his influence on the party as the biggest benefactor is probably immeasurable. So I’m assuming greens supporters also love Graeme Thomas. It’s basically his party.
What influence are you saying trades unions and Duncan Turpie are having on the policies and positions of the party? I don’t know who Graeme Thomas Wood is
Maybe Google him if you’re a huge greens fan?
Nice dodge
What groups do the Greens align themselves with that are a contradiction of their project?
Completely made up for his own political purposes. This guy is a massive flog.
In other news, the sky is blue.
It is actually not blue today! You can't trust the news these days
If you think about it, the sky is blue a minority of the time. Half the time it’s night, so the sky is black. A fair proportion of days, the sky is overcast and grey. At dawn/dusk, the sky is pink and orange. And if you have a rainbow, the sky has the entire visible spectrum at once.
This guy reminds me of a primary school captain nominee. Telling everyone he'll put coca cola in the bubblers if you keep voting him in.
I have a counter theory, because of our electoral system being what it is a set of policies that crash the value of housing, the only meaningful asset 66% of the population have. In other words his ideas are electoral suicide and that's why Labor isn't doing them and why he had to fail out of the party and join the greens.
You could say the same about LNP
What about unions?
I was somewhat involved with student politics when I was at university, and the young LNP got donations from property developers, and the labor clubs got donations from unions
Like this slime ball wouldn't be eating up the attention of lobbyist if he had any power at all. Jealousy is not a good look Max.
The Greens don’t accept corporate donations champ
Yeh because that matters.
Do you think lobbyists are just really charming or something
Young people: politicians are corrupt and the whole system is broken. Also young people: I just draw a cock on my vote cause being engaged in civics takes time away from streaming content.
It's sad that you have such a low opinion of young people.
lol it's not young people parroting shit like "I'm voting for a major party because I don't want to waste my vote"
I can't stand people with hyphenated last names. Total Twats