Fake Left censors furiously as population ponzi drives up poverty rates

By Leith van Onselen

From The Guardian comes news that poverty rates in Australia are surging on the back of skyrocketing housing costs:

Housing costs alone are responsible for pushing a further 229,000 Australian children below the poverty line, a new analysis shows.

Researchers on Tuesday released the first longitudinal analysis of homelessness in Australia, showing the impact of stagnant wages and social security rates, inadequate social housing investment and increasing house prices.

The report confirms trends seen in the latest census data: rough sleeping is up by 20% in the five years to 2016, overall homelessness has spiked 14%, and demand for homelessness service has increase 22%.

But the analysis – commissioned by Launch Housing and prepared by the universities of News South Wales and Queensland – goes deeper, seeking to understand the consequences of policy inaction.

It finds, among other things, that the costs of housing are driving up the poverty rate by 3.3% points, to 13.3%. The cost of housing causes an additional 613,000 people to fall below the poverty line, using 2013-14 figures. That includes 229,000 children.

Property prices have increased by 80% in the past decade, while median household income grew by 40%. Overcrowding has increased by 88%…

Tony Keenan, the chief executive of Launch Housing, described the situation as a “national disgrace”. Keenan said the data in the report, named the Australian Homelessness Monitor, should serve as a blueprint for action.

Righto, so soaring property values are the primary driver behind the surge in homelessness and overcrowding. And values have soared by far the most in Sydney and Melbourne since prices peaked in 2010 (values in the other major capitals have fallen in real inflation-adjusted terms):

And this surge in property values in Sydney and Melbourne has occurred on the back of mammoth population growth into these two cities:

Which has been caused primarily by Australia’s mass immigration ‘Big Australia’ policy:

Why won’t the Fake Left admit that Australia’s population Ponzi is a key ingredient behind the rise in homelessness, overcrowding and poverty, and therefore lobby to have Australia’s immigration intake reduced back to sensible historical levels of around 70,000 people a year?

Indeed, an MB Reader, John, made similar points in The Conversation about the obvious connection between high immigration, increased housing costs, and poverty only to be censored:

Hello John,

Your comment on ‘Homelessness: Australia’s shameful story of policy complacency and failure continues’ has been removed. There are several reasons why this may have occurred:

  1. Your comment may have breached our community standards. For example it may have been a personal attack, or you might not have used your real name.
  2. Your comment may have been entirely blameless but part of a thread that was removed because another comment had to be removed.
  3. It might have been removed for another editorial reason, for example to avoid repetition or keep the conversation on topic.

For practical reasons we reserve the right to remove any comment and all decisions must be final, but please don’t take it personally.

If you’re playing by the rules it’s unlikely to happen again, so feel free to continue to post new comments and engage in polite and respectful discussion.

For your reference, the removed comment was:

“The authors have totally ignored the fact (sic) that we are adding, quite deliberately, another million people into the Australian population every four years all of whom need housing along with a host of other infrastructure items that are falling progressively into disrepair. Roughly two thirds of this increase comes from the very high immigration rate, something supported by all political parties. This is not to blame immigrants for homelessness, it is to blame deliberate government policy. This high immigration rate is now opposed by a majority of Australians but the majority’s wish ignored by all political parties”.

For more information you can read our standards.

Kind regards,

The Conversation

For the life of me, I cannot find anything offensive or inaccurate in John’s comment. He also used his real name (left out deliberately by me). So why has The Conversation censored debate?

Does the Fake Left genuinely care about the welfare of Australia’s working classes who are being thrown under the bus to feed the ‘Growth lobby’?

[email protected]

Comments

  1. I think we lost our democracy while ago and are now ruled by elites who control the media and are using it to just brainwash the masses.
    This is insane. If what you posted is 100% of John’s comment then we are.. There is nothing offensive there.

  2. DarkMatterMEMBER

    This constant massaging of the “acceptable” public view point is a worry. Obviously, if we actually heard what people really think, it would be a public relations nightmare for the media. Interestingly, there seems to be a lull in the “racism” shutdown that we had previously. That may be because the spin doctors realised that there was blow back from trotting out such a tired old meme so often.

    What is even more of a worry is what will be the next step as it becomes apparent that the deplorables are not going to roll over and embrace overcrowding. Last week I was poking fun at the “Fixated Loner Assesment Centre”, but if people like John persist with their misguided comments, it might require an unscheduled appointment and a “needle of compliance”.

  3. Is it possible to ask for clarification from the Conversation re the application of their ‘standards’?
    It would be interesting to know whether arguments regarding negative gearing, bank money creation allocated to house flipping and excessive LVR ratios etc were similarly blocked.

    • Getting clarification would be good. If they don’t respond, it makes MB look like the classy act.

    • Ill clarify their standards for you.

      WWAHLDD?.

      What would a hipster lefty douche do?

    • MediocritasMEMBER

      The Conversation is a product of universities (most of the authors are academics), therefore conversation that drifts away from whatever SJWs find tolerable will not be permitted.

      This is a good example of what it’s like on campus. Emotional ideology stomping all over rational discourse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Knv7ZwIBmvs

  4. boyracerMEMBER

    It’s ok – Jenny Leong is on the case.

    https://www.domain.com.au/news/sydneys-homeless-population-increases-at-more-than-triple-the-national-rate-landmark-report-finds-20180515-h101i1/

    “Newtown MP and Greens spokeswoman for housing Jenny Leong said the NSW government wasn’t building enough affordable and social housing to address the rising rate of homelessness.

    “In reality they’re tinkering around with the edges [of housing policy] and in the process we’re losing valuable inner city housing,” said Ms Leong.

    A shift in thinking is needed to avoid a housing crisis into the future, according to Ms Leong, which would see public housing treated as an infrastructure investment much like public hospitals and transport.”

    • A shift in thinking that is a bridge too far for Jenny, like cutting immigration for a start 😀

    • DarkMatterMEMBER

      Sydney’s homeless population increased more than three times faster than the national rate …

      Is this a Live Export opportunity?

      • The obvious solution is that those who can’t keep up with the rat-race should be shunted off to the regions. We can build tent cities. Australia can be advertise that it is a leader in accepting refugees. Internal economic refugees.

  5. SoMPLSBoyMEMBER

    “Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”
    ― George Orwell, 1984

  6. “For practical reasons we reserve the right to remove any comment and all decisions must be final, but please don’t take it personally.”

    Talk about having it both ways.

  7. Just looked, the comment is now there. Sanity (regarding censorship) prevailed apparently, though the article’s failure to discuss mass immigration’s relationship to the increase in homelessness means it still regards virtue signalling more important than the topic being analysed.

      • Interested to see how far will the establishment allow MB to go – in terms of being independent and allowing different views to be presented (especially in the comments area).
        I remember the times when Guardian was independent and I remember when it was brought to its knees. SNOWDEN.

    • Amazeballs. Look at what a hit of accountability achieves.

      Well done MB and John.

      A big “screw you” goes out to the Conversation Thought Crime Police.

    • Screw those guys. They are poor.

      Only house-owning pensioners should be protected from having to move out of their home. Eh, Tania?

  8. jkambahMEMBER

    It is not just the fake left that censors discussion about the costs of immigration.

    The conflicted right/establishment/business interests do that as well.

    I used to raise the issue of what immigration meant for thje existing population in terms of housing costs, competition for our young and other Oz workers, congestion costs, infrastructure costs, welfare costs etc and sometimes mentioned that we were establishing a ponzi scheme at the Business Spectator about 8-11 years ago before they put up a paywall. Initially they let some of my stuff through but over time they took out portions and eventually pretty much excluded all my posts so I gave up posting. I am sure others have found that the censoreship of these issues is being undertaken by both the left and right wings of our community to establish a general community amnesia about how things were once before the population ponzi took hold.

    The galling thing about the fake left is that they claim to work in the interests of our less wealthy citizens when in fact they are working to maintain their subjugation and immiseration.

    It was a mistake to allow Murdoch to own so much of our media – limits the expression of alternative independent views. It needs to be broken up along with the 4 big banks.

  9. Mincingwowser

    ‘Why won’t the Fake Left admit that Australia’s population Ponzi is a key ingredient behind the rise in homelessness, overcrowding and poverty, and therefore lobby to have Australia’s immigration intake reduced back to sensible historical levels of around 70,000 people a year?’
    Because they are morally involuted and are too busy patting themselves on the back letting each other know how good a person they are so they can get their little dopamine hit like a conditioned circus animal doing tricks for treats.

  10. rentsailorMEMBER

    With every year.. with every 200k “imported skilled workers” also squeezes the virtue signalling fake lefties just as much as the normal people.

    MB and it’s readers not letting the issue go is having an impact. Silencing the cries of rayyycism.

    Keep it up MB and readers. Never shy away from hitting the lefties with cold hard facts. In the face.

  11. I’m not sure if I love high property prices more than I hate homeless losers. These are confusing times. Very confusing.

    • You even seem confused about what times we are in. Are they very confusing or just confusing?

  12. Super Phoenix

    “So why has The Conversation censored debate?”

    Because Conversation in the “good news is bad news & bad news is good news” world means not to have conversation!!

  13. Of course poverty is going up. We have a conservative government in power. We are on track to becoming just like the US with extreme inequality.