Stockholm Syndrome continued.

Garry Mallard responds to a commentator on the previous post who wrote:

1. It is wrong to suggest that things 'couldn't be worse' under the Libs: they could be. The Libs could completely abolish public housing, selling it off. Brogden's public service cuts could only further deteriorate the service at the drastically understaffed DOH.

2. DH is right to argue that being a member of the Labor Party may help you guide it in the right direction, while voting for it will only confirm the bastards in their complacency. The problem is that if you are in the ALP you are a) expected to vote Labor b) expected to tell everyone else to vote Labor . You could preference another party without the ALP finding out and expelling you, but to suggest voting for another party will certainly get you expelled, no? That's the determining reason why I won't join the ALP: I believe that voters who want the ALP to move to the left should send out a clear message by voting Green, even if they are closer to the ALP's politics that the Greens'.

Posted by "Himself" to Diary of a Desperate Houso at Wed Mar 21, 07:55:00 PM EST

Garry's response:

Stockholm Syndrome - I rest my case!

Yes, I've heard the hysterical bleat, "but they'll sell all the public housing" the sky will fall. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. And the evidence justifying that paranoia would be? And the difference between selling-off public housing, and privatising it through stealth either by selling it off or clear-felling it one estate at a time (Dubbo, Minto, Bonnyrigg, St Mary's) or via transfers to community housing organisations and banks like Westpac in 35 year Public Private Partnership redevelopment deals a la Bonnyrigg would be what exactly.....??

And just for the record, Labor has been in power for the 12 years during which, public housing stock has decreased in a not-inconsiderable way. Labor doesn't build additional homes. It just builds the odd new one from time to time and calls it "new" - NEW not ADDITIONAL. Anyone who has been keeping an eye on the pre-election media bumph will have seen how the Iemma govt's $230 million affordable housing (election) strategy has been totally and profoundly debunked by analysts, who have also exposed the fact that the only new money going to housing in the aforementioned election promise is $30 million dredged up from interest on Rental Bond Board investments and unclaimed bonds.....in other words tenants - punters on the waiting list and/or in housing stress are subsidising the Iemma Govt's pre-election fraud.

And who introduced the "Relocating tenants for Management Purposes" policy that was dropped on the DoH website by dead of night on March 16, giving the department guiding parameters by which it has the power to shuffle tenants around as it pleases, for whatever reason takes its fancy? Who has gradually robbed NSW tenants of every provision of the act and management convention that once made public housing the bastion of security and affordability it once was? Was it the Greens....the Democrats...the Coalition....the Shooters' Party perhaps? No....it was Labor. And Labor is doing the same thing right around the Nation, robbing tenants of the security of tenure they once enjoyed - selling off stock rather than building additional units.

There is plenty of money in NSW to solve the housing crisis. It simply isn't the govt's priority to do so, because it knows that of all the portfolios, public housing is the only human service it can totally ignore without fear of criticism from the tax payer. It can do that because a Labor Minister (and 2 predecessors) keeps running the sector down in the media - "Public Housing is housing of last resort!" "The Department is the Landlord of last resort!" "Housing is a hand-up when you need it, not a hand-out for life!" "We're getting tough on bad tenants" - and in this statement in particular govt conveniently forgets that it now only houses "those most in need" who are often those least capable of taking responsibility for their own actions - the new target groups - the mentally ill - the homeless (who are often mentally ill) - "people who cannot maintain a tenancy in the private sector" (the mentally ill again, the drug addicted and Indigenous people to name a few) - the frail-aged - " Is offering housing only to people who are the most disadvantaged and least capable of sustaining successful tenancies and then kicking said disadvantaged people while they're down, all part of the state Labor manifesto is it?

Honestly, why vote Labor again? What is it we have to be grateful for? Why do we do it? The last one's easy to answer. We do it because that's what we always do!

I say it again, Stockholm Syndrome!

Garry

Posted by Garry to Diary of a Desperate Houso at Thu Mar 22, 09:39:00 AM EST