Mark Latham scythes into NSW election

Via The Australian comes Mark Latham campaigning in Western Sydney:

…According to Mr Latham, the Berejiklian government’s much-vaunted “hi-tech Disneyland” ­vision for the area was another casualty of the state government’s “disastrous lack of planning” and its failure to manage the city’s migrant “population ­explosion”.

…“If you can’t build a couple of tram tracks on the main street in the CBD, you haven’t got much hope of accommodating new ­cities on the outskirts of Sydney the size of Adelaide.’’

…Mr Latham said vast expanses of apartment towers had been springing up across Sydney’s outer west before any of the basic community services such as hospitals had been contemplated. At the same time, high-density residential developments were going up so quickly across Sydney that the city had become “unrecognisable”.

…He said One Nation’s policy to slash Australia’s migrant intake by two-thirds would immediately take the pressure off Sydney…

The ON vote is going to rip with this bloke in charge or I’m no judge. Not least because he is absolutely right. Infrastructure Australia has long forecast the crush-loading of Sydney’s west with absurd house prices, falling wages and crashing services:

All thanks to Queen Lucy Turnbull and her total bullshit “three cities” fantasy.

Latham may finally be an Australian “populist” worthy of the title.

Comments

  1. GunnamattaMEMBER

    I think he has great scope to disrupt the federal election simply because he puts his fingers onto the sore neither mainstream side of politics wants to touch – immigration.

    and if the ON vote gets traction in Western Sydney then we can be sure the ALP will either firm right up on its public immigration position OR it will be roasted alive in office with a majority which doesnt give it carte blanche through the Senate

      • The Beetrooter Advocate

        Indeed. The joint press conferences should be hilarious. Hope Pauline remembers to bring a cut out backup of him to her events.

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        Its a Shame he’s running in State Politics.
        Immigration is a Federal issue, he should be there.
        ON could be a true force to reckon with, if only they could get Pauline to gracefully retire and let others, like Latham, take over.
        She is just to ridiculous to be taken seriously.

  2. I suspect ON may get more votes than pollsters think. Like Trump, voters might be embarrassed to say they’re going to vote ON, but in the privacy of the booth, ON will get the tick.

      • Sigh. So true. If I told my partner that I reckon Trump isn’t 100% Spawn of Satan I’d probably be celibate for a month. Same same with Latham.

        Thank Dog for the privacy of the polling booth, eh Doc? 🙂

    • A bloke at work who is originally from India – moved here 10 years ago, is openly telling anyone who will listen that he is voting ON as “the Australia I moved here for is getting destroyed”.

      • Yes, I have heard that kind of sentiment from immigrants of approximately that vintage many many times.

        Most are a bit discreet about it (the sentiment) and their voting intentions too.

      • Good to see he’s really adopted that aussie boomer attitude,
        I’ve got mine now close the door behind me before anyone else wants some.

      • My old manager is of Indian origin and served in the RAAF (he’s not a recent migrant) some 30+ years ago. He’s all for reducing immigration and stopping visa rorting / opportunistic Indian’s. He often posts the most anti-immigration material on FB too haha.

      • A bloke at work who is originally from India – moved here 10 years ago, is openly telling anyone who will listen that he is voting ON as “the Australia I moved here for is getting destroyed”.

        He was a bit late to the party. Ten years ago the damage was already well and truly done. Especially if he lives in Sydney.

      • Yes! I moved here from America 9 years ago and I’m voting 1 for Sustainable Australia. NO QUESTION. For the same reason: the Australia I moved here to enjoy (at considerable expense and resulting in at least a 5 year hit to my career progress) is being destroyed.

        It’s not about “I’ve got mine”, as much as it is “When I got mine, the place wasn’t quite as overcrowded and services and recreation were good. But they’ve simply let too many of us in without other things keeping up, and it’s time to slow down so that future me’s will look as favourably upon the country as I did back in the day.” If you think our friends back in our home countries don’t visit or read the news and ask, “Why did you move there? Housing’s even less affordable than it is here, and it’s so crowded!”, surprise, they do.

        If I thought a vote for ON was anything but for someone who’d rubber-stamp all LNP policies except those dealing with immigration and maybe small business, I might be tempted by them. But NAH, not voting for LNP-lite-who-wants-to-cut-immigration.

      • @ Dr Smithy, you have a good point. I first visited Sydney 15 years ago, and it was pretty nice still. I can’t speak to what the West was like, because as a tourist, I didn’t have time to go out there. But the inner environs, north shore, etc. were still pretty good, although I was stunned when a friend pointed to homes along the harbour that I’d remarked about as being “million dollar homes” and said, “try SEVERAL million”, even back then.

        I moved to Sydney from a mining town, which was my first stop when I migrated ~12 years ago. Compared to the mining town (including its $800/week rentals for fibro shacks which people like me on a Council salary had no chance of affording, as our paychecks weren’t even that large), even what Sydney was 9 years ago was pretty good. The cost of living had not yet gotten so out of control compared to what I was used to in America, AND, it was certainly lower than it was in the mining town when compared to the salary I could attract here.

      • I lived in Sydney for about 5 years in the early 2000s, first in the Hurstville area, then later Newtown & Summer Hill.

        Even then I thought it was an overcrowded hole, but I’m from the country so any city already starts off on the back foot with me.

      • @DrSmithy, no he lives out Werribee way in Victoria.
        RE: Sydney being an overcrowded hole. It was busy in 2013 when I arrived. It’s got insane in 2019. I’m ready to leave. Even though Melbourne ain’t fair behind, it’s more manageable given the state of the roads there. Can’t deal with it anymore..

      • @Hobbit
        The process you are complaining about started long before you came here if you arrived 9 years ago. It was already well underway 20+ years ago, so the Australia you came here for was already being destroyed at the time you came, ironically by many like yourself who all came for the promises of the past Australia, rather than the future it was causing.
        I don’t blame you for choosing this, but do find it amusing.

      • Mr SquiggleMEMBER

        “I’ve got mine now close the door behind me before anyone else wants some’

        In other words, if you are a migrant, you are now morally compelled to support record levels of migration. To my mind, its like saying if you were a baby once, you have to support the baby bonus. Its just a ridiculous argument, but it really does hold sway with a lot of people.

        Its what happened to Bob Kattter on Q&A when he tried to argue for a slowdown in migration. He got ridiculed because his grandfather was a migrant.

      • @Gavin Me, too. I’m going to SEQ where my salary will buy a home, and will FIFO to Sydney for work, staying in a backpackers during the week. Will still cost less than renting a decent place in Sydney, amazingly enough, even including airfare (assuming that I can usually get it very cheaply when purchasing in advance), and with an occasional commute via train pass ($500 per 6 months!) when no cheap airfares are to be found.

      • @bjw, Do consider that the Australia I saw 15 years ago when I first visited was “good enough” — better enough from what I saw in America, that a move seemed interesting, and 12 years ago I moved to Australia. Not as good as the Australia I read about in magazines in the 1970s when I was a kid, but still much more like that than America was.

        Also consider that there is evidence that migrants still make decisions based on “good enough” and that the mix of migrants has been changing as more and more it’s third world migrants, rather than first world migrants, who decide that Australia meets the “good enough” test. The end result is more third world migrants, and fewer first world migrants, who might instead choose London if they want a colonial experience or Hong Kong if they want an Asian experience.

      • But in a downturn, he will move back to India (or so we are told by some here). Though, if he has already shipped over his and his wife’s parents, then it probably won’t happen. And if he came here close to 50, as so many do, then he only needs to hold out for another 7 or so years and he can get a lovely pension after contributing so much in his 17 years here.

      • Yes, Indians don’t like immigration too much (beyond getting their extended family here). That’s why India’s foreign born population is what, less than 1 percent?


      • Yes, Indians don’t like immigration too much

        Well, I think they had a pretty nasty experience with criminal migrants from the UK stealing everything not nailed down and far worse through a lot of the 18th and 19th century.

        Though, given India is home to the 12th largest overseas born population in the world, possibly the only reason the proportion of foreign born population appears low is that India’s population is very high to begin with.

    • A common theme in the west is that people want to punish the political elite. Lib/Lab/Green offer pretty much the same neoliberal menu and refuse to discuss the issues that are important to people. A compliment media that adds lashings of PC “opinion” to a press release and then ‘goes after’ sinners makes the situation far far worse.

      Mass immigration, culture and quality of life is the brontosaurus in the political living room in the West. Whether it is France, Germany, Sweden, the UK or the USA this is at a crisis point. The EU may well begin to disintegrate in 2019. We are on the cusp of a major upheaval, but the message we get is that it is different here in Australia.

      Rather than deal with the issues our politico-media love in (the “press gallery”) would prefer to ignore, distract, shut down or pour scorn on those who dissent over the share of swill in the political pig trough. Yet this is like replacing the release valve in a pressure cooker with a bolt. Eventually it will blow.

      Latham will force the elites to change the script. They will attempt to discredit him, unaware that this will harden the resolve of the people who’ve had enough. For when you have the choice of Lib/Lab/Green you’d vote for the devil himself if he was to give the cozy club a giant trident in the behind.

      The more Mark Lathams that can be sent to the parliaments of Australia the better. Anything is better than business as usual.

      • A common theme in the west is that people want to punish the political elite. Lib/Lab/Green offer pretty much the same neoliberal menu and refuse to discuss the issues that are important to people.

        It’s really not reasonable to lump the Greens in there with the other two.

        Certainly, they’ve caught a case of neoliberal sniffles (eg: taxation/funding), but they still want extensive investment in and ownership of public services, actively develop strategic industries and create employment, and basically be economically lefty/interventionist.

        By all means, criticise them for loose immigration policy, and if you’re the type who doesn’t like progressive social policies, those as well. But they cannot be reasonably lumped in with Coalition and Labor’s neoliberal economics.

      • drsmithy

        A party that calls itself ‘Green’ yet abandons its sustainable population policy for identity politics has caught a politically terminal disease. It lost focus on the very issue that makes every other environmental issue worse – population. It has failed to lead the discussion and is the party most responsible for injecting regressive left opprobrium into Australian political discourse. If it were still the party of Bob Brown I’d fully agree with you. But this is no longer the case, especially in NSW. They can be compared to the others because they have all abandoned their guiding principles for what they see as expedience e.g.

        1. The ALP no longer supports workers or the working class – it is neoliberal lite. It is Labor without Labor principles who don’t work for Bob the Builder, but the bloke who owns the company where Bob works;

        2. The Libs are a million miles from the ideology of Menzies and Frazer. Ex-captain Kroger’s ‘broad church’ run by the hard right priests is busy molesting liberalism. Even John Hewson holds his nose;

        3. The Greens have drifted from sustainability to regressive left ‘bandwagon’ politics; A watermelon party that is in crisis as someone dropped and split the watermelon. It’s an open secret that they were colonised by the loopy left so that actual Green issues only rate a footnote:

        https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/ripping-up-my-membership-jeremy-buckingham-quits-toxic-greens-to-run-as-an-independent-20181220-p50nec.html

        All of the parties above have abandoned their guiding principles and there is an elite pushing an opaque ideological agenda rather than building support around a solid principle and democratic process. It is not democratic to pretend to be what you are not. Trojan Horse politics must be punished by the electorate.

        So, the so-called ‘Greens’ well-deserve to be lumped into the compost heap of Australian politics.

      • “Anything is better than business as usual.”
        I suspect that attitude was fairly common in Germany in the early 1930’s. Be careful what you wish for.

      • “A party that calls itself ‘Green’ yet abandons its sustainable population policy for identity politics has caught a politically terminal disease. It lost focus on the very issue that makes every other environmental issue worse – population.”

        Well said, Clive.To me, Sustainable Australia is a greener version of the Greens these days — less worried about Social Justice for various put-upon minorities who know how to attract cameras (not saying they don’t have legit gripes, just that there are bigger issues that affect more of the population that don’t get as much attention), and more worried about environmental and governance issues (like all the public service privatisation the LNP likes to do that reduces community sustainability).

      • Thanks. That’s the sort of off-topic tangent I was expecting.

        Bonus points for the Bob Brown reference even though he oversaw the party for a decade after it supposedly abandoned population growth as an environmental issue, was himself a supporter of “identity politics” issues like same-sex marriage and commie ideas like medicare and welfare.

      • bjw678

        The problem with simplistic narratives that suggests the political status quo is the solid hedge against Nazis and Fascists is that it avoids anyone having to discover that it is the status quo and vested interests who creates the social conditions for the rise of the Far Right in the first place.

        If you know your history you will realise that the 1930s threw up far right parties because of the failure of western politics to deal with the mistakes due to a ‘business as usual’ approach. The Great Depression and the inequity it produced was caused by the finance industry and Wall Street speculation. Sound familiar? And what about the inequality and tensions that generated nationalism? This did not come out of thin air – it was driven by elitism, class war, revolution, social division and a sense of injustice that fed into nationalistic politics.

        A failure to deal with social divisions and tensions all has a very familiar ring to it.

        It took the ‘New Deal’ to bring the USA out of the depression. Banking regulations were then imposed – the same ones removed with the deregulation of the finance industry in the 80s. Perhaps more than anything this has led us to the cliff once more as our idiot politicians have set up very similar pre-conditions to the 1930s.

        The same people driving the car over the cliff are not those who will save it. In effect you are telling me that we better let those crazies in the driver’s seat save us. Peace in our time anyone?

      • drsmithy

        “Thanks. That’s the sort of off-topic tangent I was expecting.”

        If only you had ascribed the approved topic tangent I could have written something designed to please you.

        How on earth is this off topic?

      • I replied to your post whinging about how the Greens have embraced neoliberalism as much as Liberals and Labor challenging that assertion.

        You went off on a tangent by redefining neoliberalism as “guiding principles”, using your view of what those were to try and support the original statement so you could throw in some drivel about “regressive left” and not have to actually address the point.

        At least the good old snarl world “watermelons” historically has some level of economic context, though given the earlier lumping in of the Greens with “neoliberalism” I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that was not what you were thinking of (not to mention, it’s hardly rhetoric that’s going to be particularly bruising to a party that wears its left-wing economic ideals on its sleeve, is it ?).

        TL;DR: The topic was neoliberalism.

      • Very good Clive.

        Latham is a good speaker, not a Great Orator, but a baby step in the right direction.
        The traitors in the other parties and the elites, imposing the ruinous massive Third World immigration on Australians will be fearful of him.

      • drsmithy

        “I replied to your post whinging about how the Greens have embraced neoliberalism as much as Liberals and Labor challenging that assertion. You went off on a tangent by redefining neoliberalism as “guiding principles”, using your view of what those were to try and support the original statement so you could throw in some drivel about “regressive left” and not have to actually address the point.”

        I’m not sure why it is so difficult to make the connection between abandoning sustainable population targets as the now de facto continuations of the neo-liberal Ponzi scheme? Nor is it clear to me why it is not bleeding obvious that this then defines virtually every other economic position they have.

        Mass immigration is also the Green magic economic bullet that is related to jobs ‘n growth in a very similar way to the LNP and ALP.

        They are fully into education industries (visa scams), building high density cities (concrete dog box ponzi) and “ecotourism” (mass tourism). All their policies first accept the status quo (mass immigration and service economy) and then add a bit of a green flourish (regressive left drivel) but not much more i.e immigration has to do with equity, diversity and an opposition to racism as an add on. Big cities in Big Australia will be ‘green’ as well as big. Mass tourism will be ‘environmentally sensitive’ and to hell with the fact that everyone will come via greenhouse gas generating aircraft.

        None of this makes sense as it all links into the economic status quo. Do you want fries with the Big Australia or the Happy Green Meal Dr Smithy?

        What’s missing is a different Green economic vision based upon a sustainable population. That was thrown away as they threw in with middle of the road politics – as it was all too hard. That ain’t no distraction Dr Smithy – it is the big green neoliberal elephant in the living room that just tells everyone that its shit smells ideologically Green and won’t stain the carpet.

      • Spambot ate the response.

        Can’t be arsed figuring out why.

        TL;DR: “Neoliberal” and “boogeyman” aren’t synonyms. Greens policies are not neoliberal (other than aligning with the “taxes fund expenditure” status quo) and do not support high levels of low-wage, low-skill immigration.

      • @Clive
        ” In effect you are telling me that we better let those crazies in the driver’s seat save us.”
        No, I’m telling you that the people who come to save you from the crazies may end up being just as crazy or worse. I merely pointed out that not everything is better than the status quo. Things can most certainly be made worse. Lets say ON runs more candidates than they actually have at the federal election and wins a majority in both houses of federal parliament. Do you think ON with Pauline as PM would be better or worse than the encumbents for Australians?

  3. It is a little bit ironic that the reason he left the Lib Dems was because Leyonhjelm wouldn’t give up his number one spot on the ticket and so he joined PHON to run in the state election. And now Leyonhjelm will quit the Senate (knowing that he won’t get in again) and run at the state level.

    Will be interesting if they both get in.

  4. He’s got an acid tongue and a caustic brain on him that one!

    If you can’t build a couple of tram tracks on the main street in the CBD, you haven’t got much hope of accommodating new ­cities on the outskirts of Sydney the size of Adelaide.

    Zing!

    • He is anti Islam though and that may put some folks off. (Not me), as I’m not a fan of it either to be honest or any of the sky daddy religions. But as much as “I don’t like it”, I’ll probably give ON a preference also. Not #1, but anyone saying they will slash immigration will get a preference.

      Roughly how I currently see it.. but I will investigate more of the minor parties and what noises they are making before the election.

      #1 Sustainable Australia
      #2 ON
      #3 Labor
      #4 Liberal (I hate it when they call ScoMo honorable).
      #5 Greens LOL (idiots)..

      • robert2013MEMBER

        You’re being very generous to Liblab. I was able to find enough sane-ish sounding parties to put them at around 35 and 36 out of 70 on the senate ticket and last out of 6 on the reps. I will continue to vote flux #1 – the party for direct democracy in the senate. Politicians have proven they can’t be trusted. Remember also that it’s the primary vote that determines how the money gets allocated.

      • Flux interests me. A business acquaintance was a candidate last time ’round.

        It’s just that electronic democracy isn’t yet ready for prime time. It’s currently too open to manipulation (look at what happens in America when electronic voting is involved).

  5. The Beetrooter Advocate

    Wow… Never stops does it? It’s always going ON and ON and ON here.

    It is hard to believe knowledgeable people aware of the world’s history would consider voting for a party led by an ignorant, failed business person with a demonstrated history of backflips and non-sensical parliamentary​ stunts who has proved incapable of enacting their policy in the senate and who has sold out what policies they did seem to genuinely support for a handful of carpet-bagged power beans.

    But enough about Scott Morrison. Hanson cannot possibly be the answer. No matter what the question is.

      • The Beetrooter Advocate

        Thank you. I’ll add that to the file for this year’s performance planning assessment.

    • awesome, love your work. Summed up Scott M perfectly. Never before have i looked forward to an election with such anticipation. Hoping to see total destruction of the Liberal muppets. Hopefully the Australian public work out that any other party could run the country (SA, ON, CA) and there is no way they could actually do worse than Liberal has. Shameless favours for mates and ex MPs, complete disregard for environment, total disdain for women (ironic given Julie Bishop seems quite good), complete enslavement to rightwing nutbags, missed opportunities in the renewable industry, complete ownership by the minerals council to the point that they sell out the Australian public, constant scandals, and an overwhelming air of smug superiority.Lets slap them hard!

  6. TailorTrashMEMBER

    Mark Latham 2 will be much more interesting ….if he keeps that sort of ripping oratory going ..stays away from slogans like “ease the squeeze “ (however relavent now ) and “ladder of opportunity”……still can’t see what he’s doing going for the NSW upper house ….perhaps Pauline can’t handle any real competition…….think she is going to get it anyway

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      If he was in Federal politics and in my seat I wouldn’t hesitate in voting for him and Other than Sweeper and Smithy I reckon im the Leftiest here.
      Our Mass immigration numbers detrimentaly effect the standard of living of the Young and Working Class Australians more than any other single issue.
      For the leadership of the ALP to ignore this is a betrayal of the Traditional base of the Labor party and its leadership must be held to account for this.

      • The time they are a changing ermo.
        Labor has made it completely clear they don’t consider this their base.
        I suspect you don’t have enough influence to change this, despite prolific commentary on the comments of this site 🙂
        You would probably be as effective joining the liberal party and advocating the same policies.

  7. Jumping jack flash

    I don’t mind Latham, but he needs to stay on the happy pills. If he loses it, he’s lost it.

    All it will take is for someone sensible to calmly expose the ineptitude of the current flock of clowns that are supposedly our super-intelligent elected leaders with planet-sized brains.

    The timing is right. Everyone is fed up with the past 10 years of non-governance. The clowns who lead us are corrupt, lazy, greedy and don’t give two proverbials – only focused on what they can personally gain, and their life after politics.

    The people are soaked in debt and angry.
    The economy is a pit of gouging private companies and debt keeps it running – for the moment.

    If Latham can do this sensibly, and stays sane, and most importantly, offers actual solutions, he’ll do well.

    • Staying sane would prove very difficult I reckon for anyone who is blessed with a decent brain – and Latham certainly is. Imagine being interviewed by some idiot from the ABC?

      • Ping – jackpot! Especially some ABC idiot who is asking questions on behalf of the major parties.

  8. John Howards Bowling Coach

    I hate to be the one to point out that current state of the Australian Electorate but if you look at the result of the Victorian Election only weeks ago, you need to take a reality check on the actual change outcome. Sure the Libs put up a dead horse as their leader, BUT the ALP government in Victoria are worse than hopeless. And while grandstanding with money gained by selling the port as a formal monopoly with rising usage costs for all Exporters, the ALP romped home with a massive win. The voters truly are stupid, will vote for a moron like Dan Andrews and so we could easily either see Scummo returned with a majority or almost worse an unchecked Shorten and I seriously doubt it will be a case of needing to trade off with a crossbench to give some effective representation. The Sustainable Australia Party can only hope of a preference whisperer fluke OR that the voters forget that One Nation are ready to self destruct at a moments notice once again. With such poor judgement as to fawn over a moron flat earther like Malcolm Roberts, PH really doesn’t deserve any more power than she already has. Think of the actual damage they could do to the country with the ability to actually make a change, it might be almost as bad as what we have now.

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in now