Pauline Hanson - One Nation Party

[Ghost Patrol]

 

[peetoo]

I do see your point, but you're looking for reasons that people should agree with you and not for why they aren't.

You're quite welcome to assume anything you like about ON voters but I think there are going to be far more regular people ticking that box for entirely not racist reasons than you're assuming and that's going to lead to false assumptions from you later about what the vote means.

The ALP exists because of the unions, everything the unions do is a reflection therefore on the ALP and they are deeply rooted within it. So when the CFMEU pressures state government to decriminlise prostitution and then sets up brothels, and state government police are politely asked to not investigate human trafficking invovled, that's ALP and their voters are complicit.

Not a fair comparison for ALP voters who ticked that box because they didn't like Morrison or Dutton.

And yet we had an actual recorded case of an immigrant with previous form setting up sex trafficking on the watch of Morrison or dutton

We can have a ‘post sources’ stoush if you like

 

[King Patty]

Great point. I'd also like it to be a constitutional requirement for people who have power over Australians to be elected, not just empowered by executives who are.

How do you define control?
like signing up to WHO , UN, climate change initiatives
giving away our resources to foreign companies
letting foreign companies control our energy assets
letting foreign companies buy up Australian land, historically has been owned by UK interests, Japan, china and other foreign holders.
That the United states are the leader of the west?

Voting outside of that doesn't make you a communist or a nazi, it's just a lot easier to label people that when they have vested interests in the system staying the same.

I think they are labelled like that as those labelling them have been conditioned by the media to do this.

 

[Freomaniac]

Whats easier reducing demand or increasing supply?

Why not do both?

View attachment 2522432

Interesting stat there

 

[nut]

Apparently using foreign bots is ok … Australian values

Foreign Facebook pages have been promoting One Nation. It wants them to stop

An ABC NEWS Verify investigation uncovers a raft of foreign Facebook accounts targeting Australian users. And they're just the tip of the iceberg.

www.abc.net.au

 

[UltraEgo]

Apparently using foreign bots is ok … Australian values

Foreign Facebook pages have been promoting One Nation. It wants them to stop

An ABC NEWS Verify investigation uncovers a raft of foreign Facebook accounts targeting Australian users. And they're just the tip of the iceberg.

www.abc.net.au

paid for by Gina the Hutt no doubt

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I think they are labelled like that as those labelling them have been conditioned by the media to do this.

Well, no, they are being labelled like that because they are supporting a party that has discriminatory racist policies as the core of its platform and whose leader and members have publicly stated their racists views over and again over decades in the public spotlight. Their views are common knowledge so anyone supporting them can't claim ignorance (well, not that type of ignorance anyway).

 

[King Patty]

One Nation is so divisive its uniting people against Liberal and Labor.

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

Apparently using foreign bots is ok … Australian values

Foreign Facebook pages have been promoting One Nation. It wants them to stop

An ABC NEWS Verify investigation uncovers a raft of foreign Facebook accounts targeting Australian users. And they're just the tip of the iceberg.

www.abc.net.au

There really does need to be laws about financing or using bots and AI in relation to politics.

 

[Not Important]

 

[Not Important]

one of the 12 steps to fascism is to remove the right to peaceful protest. and it not only applies in the hansonite state, but everywhere.



this >

 

[King Patty]

of all the things to blame one nation for...interest rate hikes, thats an interesting position.

So it had nothing to do with money printing by liberals during covid
more money printing by labor funding fradulent NDIS and the biggest public sector workforce.
pumping immigration = increasing demand and more inflation. = interest rate hikes.
5% house deposits = pumping housing demand and = more pressure on hiking interest rates.

but its One nations fault ??? who is in government.

 

[Not Important]

of all the things to blame one nation for...interest rate hikes, thats an interesting position.

So it had nothing to do with money printing by liberals during covid
more money printing by labor funding fradulent NDIS and the biggest public sector workforce.
pumping immigration = increasing demand and more inflation. = interest rate hikes.
5% house deposits = pumping housing demand and = more pressure on hiking interest rates.

but its One nations fault ??? who is in government.

it's their stated position.

 

[King Patty]

ANZ are predicting 75 basis point increase this year.

 

[peetoo]

 

[Sphynx]

ANZ are predicting 75 basis point increase this year.

Plenty of people on here should be thrilled.

Lower house prices!

 

[Cookie]

Listening to the new Nats leader, I thought why would anyone vote for One Neuron? Both parties are the same.
A vote for the Nats is worth a lot more in terms of return, as they can negotiate from a better position with the government than One Neuron ever could. They have shadow Ministers who are briefed by the government on important legislation and issues affecting national interest.
Just who in One Neuron is capable of putting themselves up as viable alternative to the status quo?
A vote for One Neuron is an absolute waste of a vote.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Plenty of people on here should be thrilled.

Lower house prices!

Finally.

 

[Sphynx]

Finally.

Who is housing the continual flow of immigrants that’s needed to prop up the income tax base and feed the tertiary revenue sector?

You understand what lower house prices means vs rising house costs/inflation means don’t you?

Even worse supply than there is right now, which is the worst I’ve ever seen it in over 25 years. It’s hard to imagine it even lower.

Lower credit availability also.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Who is housing the continual flow of immigrants that’s needed to prop up the income tax base and feed the tertiary revenue sector?

You understand what lower house prices means vs rising house costs/inflation means don’t you?

Even worse supply than there is right now, which is the worst I’ve ever seen it in over 25 years. It’s hard to imagine it even lower.

Lower credit availability also.

Well if we want affordable housing ever again, we have to bite the bullet.

It took 30 years since Howard recklessly turbocharged everything to get to this parlous state, and we can't turn it round overnight, or without quite a bit of pain, but personally I think affordable housing should be a higher societal priority than investor returns. I guess that's where we differ.

 

[Sphynx]

Well if we want affordable housing ever again, we have to bite the bullet.

It took 30 years since Howard recklessly turbocharged everything to get to this parlous state, and we can't turn it round overnight, or without quite a bit of pain, but personally I think affordable housing should be a higher societal priority than investor returns. I guess that's where we differ.

Don’t gaslight me, this has nothing to do with owner occupier vs investor actually. You simply need to understand the system before throwing out big solutions.

What “pain”? What are you actually reducing?

The asset value? Awesome. But not the base cost….

Most of the underlying cost doesn’t change?

Can you not see the problem here?

It’s cost lock inflation. You only have the ability to adjust sometimes a low % of the base cost.

Land value is a key component in blue chip and high cost areas. Is that your target product for housing affordability for the masses? I wouldn’t have thought so.

It’s entry level housing I would have thought the priority is.

Where land value is a much smaller ratio of the total cost.

To influence the type of affordability change you are thinking about, land would virtually have to be free.

Is the government going to buy up 50-60m land tracks and farms and invest millions in the essential services and infrastructure to turn it into titled land and just give it away for nothing? Because land developers obviously won’t.

If you are talking established suburbs. The same issues still apply. The replicable and replaceable product cost means that house prices have an extremely high price floor. You can only look at driving land value to basement levels, which won’t happen because of scarcity. Because they are in established areas. Not in the ass end of nowhere.


You can see the problem here, right?

What level of supply drives land value in established areas to the basement? And reduces its value by 50-70%? Tell me, I’d be interested to hear this economic policy.

The hilarious thing, in some regions house prices actually need to go massively UP to unlock supply.

I have no idea where you are posting from. If in WA as an example, you would have a different perspective to Victoria at the moment.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Well if we want affordable housing ever again, we have to bite the bullet.

It took 30 years since Howard recklessly turbocharged everything to get to this parlous state, and we can't turn it round overnight, or without quite a bit of pain, but personally I think affordable housing should be a higher societal priority than investor returns. I guess that's where we differ.

Yes affordability of everything not just housing should be the highest priority.

But not by plummeting house prices, 2/3 of the electorate either have a mortgage or own their home - the bulk of that are likely just home owners or mortgagees, not multi property investors. They're not gonna wanna see their house price plummet.

The investor you're talking about are definitely the minority.

 

[Sphynx]

Yes affordability of everything not just housing should be the highest priority.

But not by plummeting house prices, 2/3 of the electorate either have a mortgage or own their home - the bulk of that are likely just home owners or mortgagees, not multi property investors. They're not gonna wanna see their house price plummet.

The investor you're talking about are definitely the minority.

Also, who’s guaranteeing the mortgage debt?

The Australian government? Trillions in property value and debt? It’s too large, even for them.

Or are we assuming most average mortgagees in this climate have the cashflow to pay the bank for the loss of asset value when they call up their mortgages?

Unlike capital gains, banks ask you to realise the loss immediately or they sell their security to cover the risk.

Plenty of supply though! You just annihilated 1 group of the working class to try and help “affordability” for another.

The banks and solicitors get richer though, with all the fees and foreclosure costs..

 

[King Patty]

Yes affordability of everything not just housing should be the highest priority.

But not by plummeting house prices, 2/3 of the electorate either have a mortgage or own their home - the bulk of that are likely just home owners or mortgagees, not multi property investors. They're not gonna wanna see their house price plummet.

The investor you're talking about are definitely the minority.

The only people hurt by a fall in prices are investors, provided interest rates are rising and they might be forced to sell.

You have to live somewhere regardless, but you don't need numerous rental properties.


I'm not sure I believe in the wealth effect that much....it might be in the category of trickle down economics.
unless your borrowing against your equity, its not really benefiting you.
whether my home is worth 300k or 500k your in the same market.
And costs of everything have gone up heaps.

lower prices would theoretically enable people to transact more properties as less gap to upsize / downsize.

 

[Carringbush2010]

The only people hurt by a fall in prices are investors

So the young family who's house they just bought was 750k is now 500k, but nah doesn't hurt them coz they got a roof over their head, they'll be right.

So now they're paying more in loan payments on the sale price, so if it all turns awry and can't afford to pay then there'll be a forced sale. Then they'll be in debt out on the streets.

Yeah no dramas.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Also, who’s guaranteeing the mortgage debt?

The Australian government? Trillions in property value and debt? It’s too large, even for them.

Or are we assuming most average mortgagees in this climate have the cashflow to pay the bank for the loss of asset value when they call up their mortgages?

Unlike capital gains, banks ask you to realise the loss immediately or they sell their security to cover the risk.

Plenty of supply though! You just annihilated 1 group of the working class to try and help “affordability” for another.

The banks and solicitors get richer though, with all the fees and foreclosure costs..

I don't have the answers, but on the bolded, I fairly assume that borrowers meet certain criteria to meet payments.

My point is yes, price hikes for property has got out of control, but the answer that many seem to advocate for, property price drops to be 'affordable' is not the answer.

The answer lies in increasing affordability, not devaluing to make thinks affordable.

The how I don't know.