Victorian Socialists Federal Housing Policy 2025

victoriansocia...

[@karenhayes9221]

I love you policy for housing in this country

[@rachaelryan4076]

With the 30% public housing on new developments, could you also ensure that all the public housing isn’t lumped together on one floor or block? Having it impossible to tell who has public housing ensures more dignity and safety and guards against stigmatisation of people who have been economically crippled to the point of needing the state’s help ( or interference, if you will)

[@BearingtonT]

This! And NO "POOR DOORS" (separate entrances divided by class)

[@CarrollLiddell]

Yes!

[@TheNanoNinja]

I completely agree that public or social housing needs the government to be the builder and developer. Its been done in the past. The other thing this will do is provide a training ground for building apprentices. I suspect that you could correlate the decline in trades with abolishing the Public Works Department. I'm also for a public banks, to act as a defacto banking regulator.

[@ConstantlyDamaged]

Also offer more job security for trained professional builders of all kinds, meaning they can more easily reach the goal of owning their own home.

[@Low760]

I believe that the decline in trades connects to privatisation too. The apprentice's now need to work at full speed so they don't learn everything, just what's needed at the time.

[@ConstantlyDamaged]

@ It's almost like investing in your population rather than private enterprise makes your country more stable and imrpoves living conditions for everyone.

[@theairstig9164]

Purple Pingers need to dialogue with the Citizens party. Find out where they agree and disagree

[@TheNanoNinja]

@@Low760 I use to work in Hardware. After disbanding the the Public Works Department (PWD) only apprentices you would see are the children of the former PWD tradies. There are very few of the old PWD traides left in the work force.

[@NickTaylorRickPowers]

Some of us are already out on the streets Unfortunately

[@jashmatash]

You could also build housing for first home buyers, who through lending through this government bank or asx bank, buy out properties built. This would quickly replenish the funds used for development. Price properties at cost +5% so funds keep accruing to build yet more housing.

[@alexlanning712]

credible agenda

[@michaelmasin6373]

Interest free loans for owner-occupiers with a cap on loan to income ratios to hold prices steady is really all you need. Without interest, home ownership would be significantly more affordable, meaning that long term rental properties would no longer be needed. All social housing should be rent to own.

[@floopyboo]

It would also be nice to have policy about making all abilities properties because around 10% of current properties on the rental market are accessible for people with disabilities. Making properties all abilities accessible is SO much cheaper in the build than it is aftermarket, and it means that disabled people are not fighting with abled people for the tiny share of the market that meets our needs.

[@GaraksApprentice]

Just came to the comments to mention this, glad you beat me to it. I know a few people who are currently forced to rent "luxury" apartments, because they're the few on the market that are actually accessible for their wheelchairs.

[@dirtfarmstudio9829]

this video went exactly as I had hoped

[@forthleft]

Thanks for the follow-back. Am with you on everything you're doing and the way you are able to do it. Cheers.

[@gremics-gallery]

"ONLY 30% of a weekly wage or salary is to be paid to a rental property"... Australian Government. We need the government's figures, they state that ONLY 30% of the wage is spent on rental prices. So, some lottery needs to be implemented without any real estate agent knowing the work arrangements of people applying for the rental property. Real Estate agents are handed a certificate from the government proving the applicant is working and MUST be included in the rental draw for that property. (PENALTIES PAYABLE BY THE REAL ESTATE if non-compliance is encountered) Then the rental lottery is drawn, and the landlord gets ONLY 30% of the weekly wage paid to the person. If they are professional on a salary, they pay 30% or up to the agreed rental cap ONLY - And not a penny more. (Again noncompliance from the REAL ESTATE and LANDLORD results in penalties being applied or an increased interest rate being added to the landlord's mortgage)...!

[@Luke-wz9wc]

Nice, now I can finally afford to rent a 42 bedroom mansion all by myself in Vaucluse on my $35,000 salary.

[@kimadams8757]

We shouldnt have private developers full stop, when it comes to companies building entire new suburbs to sell off bit by bit. We're then stuck with their shitty infrastructure and profit-maximising designs for potentially hundreds of years. We should be designing our suburvs, then selling the lots for people to engage builders. Even for apartment buildings, itd be better to have a housing co op engage a builder rather than a developer.

[@Beaut_Beau]

Sounds brilliant mate

[@Steamtostay]

To clarify, is the policy focused on (detached or semi-detached) houses, or are apartments/other types of homes also permitted?

[@plschooseaname]

Thanks mate

[@dtrain1464]

.. excellent, maybe also include an audit & set limits to the number of investment properties anyone in government & on a tax payer salary can have.

[@jimjim8010]

No mention of reducing housing demand by reducing the mass migration of people to Australia?. Is that mean?

[@ScarletPimpernel-pp4uy]

Wondeful PP! It's a shame I don't live in Vic. Hoping your number of followers on this account reach 1.000.000 any day soon. Looking forward to what happens in 2025 Fed Election campaigning. At last, some one standing up fpr what they believe in.

[@MatthewHawkins-hx6cu]

Where can I find the list of public housing owned by the government?

[@birbloom]

Really interesting policies here and I love that this would not only create jobs for the builders but as a result of more housing available, more people would be able to continue working as a result as opposed to losing their homes and potentially being unable to keep their current employment. Housing as an investment is so detrimental to society, investments should be made in more new ideas and innovation to improve society. While I don't agree with seizing homes that are technically not abandoned and are in use (short term stays that aren't hotels can still be absolutely valid even though I disagree with people owning a dozen properties) I think the policy does provide a good set of discussion points to work with to push some change. Just need a government who has the integrity to do what is best for the people and not for their own pocket..though I fully expect the ghoul to be elected next, I really hope Australians can prove me wrong

[@TomahawkUnleashed]

keep up the work pingerz! (but please fix the camera angle with a stack of books)

[@David-qz7fx]

This is exactly the type of policy this country needs. You've got my vote.

[@PeriPeriRascal]

They sound like great tangible policies that will make a real difference

[@Christian-qu9ml]

You are a good man. 😊

[@kimsherlock8969]

You believe in a fairer slice of cake 🎂 and this can happen with the art of strategic planning and involvement In local council grants for ??????? A Hub for growth, information and resources and space to promote trust. Diplomacy is a great place to start with your wonderful work 🎉

[@aaronthomas9231]

I would love to see federal support and funding for housing cooperatives run by the community. Public housing is wonderful but when owned by the state, it becomes too easy for them to take away. An entrenchment of our community’s right to own the estates we live in would enable us to defend ourselves against the powerful

[@iamthinking2252_]

Admittedly, I kinda thought a big part of socialism was the state (rather than big corps, or even individuals (rich or not)) owning stuff

[@aaronthomas9231]

@ It’s true that many socialists believe in abolishing the right to private property. I agree that some things should be owned by society (such as schools and banks) but I don’t see any problem with someone owning one single house. I think the problems start when someone owns something they don’t need and tries to profit off of someone who does by renting it. There are lots of forms of socialism, but they generally have the common bond of seizing the means of production. However, it leaves the question, who do we give it to? We could do what Lenin and Mao did and give control over the factories, farms and businesses seized by the revolution to the state. We could instead give these businesses to their workers, turning each business into a worker democracy. Or we could mandate that businesses be under control of a local government that isn’t a state, which would basically be communism. There are lots of ways this can work and socialists often become divided over which economic model is best. 20th century socialist revolutions usually gave everything to the state. These revolutionary governments were usually successful early on but became beset by corruption and, fearing another revolution, persecuted their citizens. The Revolution traded the capitalist ruling class for a ruling class of apparatchiks. Out of everything we’ve learned from the 20th century, I think giving all the power to one group always works out badly. I think sharing as much power as possible amongst communities is great because it gives everyone have a say over what matters most, our home, our town, our friends and family. I think this is the most democratic and liberating way we can manage society. I like community housing models because they are socialist, in that they collectivise wealth for society’s benefit, but they can exist under capitalism

[@alexandlynnward6651]

I fucking love every part of this policy.

[@DMAN123223]

Needs more land value tax

[@eucalyptuscaesia]

This is good policy. It's deplorable to have over 169,000 people nationally waiting for public housing when there are so many empty houses. The current neoliberal policy puts money in the pockets of private property developers and landlords through the privatisation of housing. This is a union fight too. The BLF sets a precedent for downing tools and inplementing Green Bans. Today the CFMEU has a role to play in the struggle for affordable and public housing for all which starts with fighting for stronger unions, establishing a public builder and stopping the slated demolition of public housing.

[@LiamScarratt]

Amazing stuff!

[@rmtsapphire0]

Initial thoughts are it all looks really good. I'll have to dwell on it longe for nuanced criticisms if I think of any.

[@oldbloke204]

Not a lot of thought needed really. A complete pipe dream and absolutely no mention of how any of it will be paid for.

[@ss-th9pf]

I understand where you are coming from. But peaceful methods like: elections, petitions, protests, lawsuits, journalism etc. are useless. These are wonderful policies but implementing all of them requires forming an armed militant group and seizing territory by force from the commonwealth of australia. Remember how hamas defeated the whole world with simple weapons

[@Low760]

The ones armed by America? Yeah.. good way to lose your house and life unfortunately.

[@Christian-qu9ml]

Guerilla Foco is the way forward!

[@CarrollLiddell]

I love it, but drop the "sieze" language, lest normies get triggered. Maybe call it a "buyout" idk, whatever the government calls it when they take your home from you to build a highway, stadium or casino...

[@donutius]

100% some shitty news source will reframe it as 'purplepingers wants to forcibly take your investment properties and give it to homeless people'

[@oldbloke204]

You mean the normies who actually understand that none of this is practical in any way and that it will cause even more drama and cost in the housing market? The only thing I heard that was in any way practical was the bit about capital gains and negative gearing but if Govt. does that then the private sector just won't invest in this market imo. All this feel good stuff sounds great but who pays for it all?

[@CarrollLiddell]

@oldbloke204 building public homes with a public builder will increase cost in housing? How? Do the roads become more expensive to use when the government spends billions on road infrastructure? I can't comment on what normies do or don't understand. Only that using words like size won't convince them. Also, in a political situation where you are a minority that will struggle to be elected and only maybe will get some upper house seats... You have to throw every radical idea in that you can. Then... You can negotiate down.

[@oldbloke204]

@@CarrollLiddell So you haven't seen all the Govt. programs that are over budget, running late or just wasting money then? How is the cheap renewable power working out for you? No one has the right to seize another person's property unless there are legal reasons so this is just a ridiculous statement imo. Another case of no idea and we want others to pay for it. Yeah electing people with silly views is why we ended up with a particular embarrassment in the upper house a while back imo. All of these ideas rely on someone else paying and no one will want to be that someone else.

[@oldbloke204]

@@CarrollLiddell Another reply gone. Keep dreaming.

[@Low760]

I love the agenda but I also realise that I'm in the 10% of voters that are interested in this change, and 10% in the senate is two seats? And the greens have similar policy, so this does expand on Thier policies, I hope there's more. And a plan on how to weave it through the majority of the senate and then the lower house, because good policy is never easy to get through thanks to vested interests such as the 60% of Australian mortgage and home owners.

[@Low760]

Something like removing funding to private schools would be nice. School teachers at public schools send Thier kids to private schools because they don't think it's good enough for their precious ones ..

[@itsjacobwhat]

Share this video

[@mattyreardon3593]

Wake up. Our gvt dose not care about affordable housing.

[@mattyreardon3593]

Do you understand rates???? They have exploded over the last 4 years. It's easier to land bank.

[@simonmillar1308]

Of course this knob does, he is a home owner not a renter.

[@alexlanning712]

Its funny how the cops in London cant handle a little argey-bargey from Sam Kerr

[@paulleclere4708]

5:17 you requested agreement/disagreement in the comments. respectfully, here's why a few of your plans would likely achieve either nothing or make the issue worse. 1) Rent caps force down the incentive to build. This directly undermines the whole point of building housing which is to increase the supply. 2) An external 3rd party to verify that housing is adequate doesn't add anything that isn't already covered by people doing their own inspections. it should be up to people to decide for themselves what housing they find acceptable, rather than banning them from anything that doesn't meet someone else's standards. I am saying this as someone who does not have much money for rent, and would not want my few available options to be declared "unsuitable" by someone else, this is a judgement I can make for myself. Its not being "subjected upon us", you can simply not rent the place 3) Seizing homes that are being used as Airbnbs would be extremely damaging for no major gain. Short term rentals are really useful and taking that away from people is pointlessly destructive. if seizing them is as a way of boosting housing stock, then we could just not artificially disincentivise housing construction by imposing rent caps. 4) Forced public housing achieves the exact same thing as rent caps, which is to temporarily lower rents at the expense of lower supply, which ultimately drives rents way up. You use the term "commodification of housing" as if that means it's extremely profitable. That is almost the exact opposite of what a commodity is. A commodity is a good which is driven down as close as possible to the cost of producing it, like sugar or cement, which is exactly what renters want, because its our money being saved. 5) Reducing home loan prices is just a subsidy for demand. This drives prices up. You cannot subsidise demand while keeping supply the same, unless you want to make prices explode. You will just have a greater amount of dollars chasing the same number of houses. It does not magically create new housing.

[@red_Sun24]

all valid points...

[@GaraksApprentice]

Re: point 2, renters can't do their own inspections on many things that determine whether a property is actually livable in the long term. For example, how am I supposed to check that the property has sufficient insulation in the roof when open inspections barely give you time to flick the light switches and check the power points? Minimum rental standards are already flouted by many landlords and they're not punished for it, they still price gouge the market. An independent body that ensures basic things like insulation, working air conditioning, and hell even that a property has a proper back door, would go a long way.

[@eucalyptuscaesia]

If any of your points were true, we wouldn't have thousands of empty homes while the public housing waiting list is over 60,000 people in Victoria alone. The commodification of housing only leads to landlords and private property developers lining their pockets with the hard earned money of the working class.

[@paulleclere4708]

@@eucalyptuscaesia Again, you're using commodification to mean almost the exact opposite of what it actually means. To make it clearer: commodity means that it's extremely cheap, and that there are virtually no profits to make off it. That is exactly what you want if you're a renter or buyer. And secondly, what gets classified as a "vacant home" is extremely subject to what definitions are used. If one person is moving out of an apartment in January, and someone else is moving in in February, that will usually get counted as a vacant dwelling, even though it is obviously not really. This leads people to thinking that there is way more available housing than there really is. And just ask yourself, if you had spent so much money on a second property, why would you just leave it vacant instead of leasing it out? You are essentially just throwing away money. Even if your plan is to wait for it to appreciate, you can still be leasing it out in the meantime.

[@paulleclere4708]

@@GaraksApprentice You could check AC and a back door yourself easily. As for insulation, are you saying that the inspector would look inside the walls and ceiling? I could see a 3rd party being useful if you're an overseas student and can't inspect it yourself, but then don't make it a requirement for everyone, just make it an option for those who want it. I have inspected apartments myself before and the truth is you can get a better idea of how liveable it is by looking at it yourself than by having someone else tell you it's good to go. Structural inspections are different because I can't do that myself but we already have those.

[@ReddRubble]

Imagine how much stuff you could be doing if you joined the greens

[@oldbloke204]

Yeah cos they don't already have enough pie in the sky rubbish of their own.

[@Low760]

Less. The greens are not socialists. They are just anti Labor.

[@roseh1132]

💚 dgaf about the actual working class

[@ReddRubble]

@@roseh1132 Enjoy never having a seat and making zero change.

[@roseh1132]

@ReddRubble What? With elite corporate workers that earn 100k per annum? I'm blue-collar. I get my hands dirty. I'm about class injustice.

[@veselekov]

Was that nevs?

[@pauljones6328]

Why not look at American home loan scheme, they have fixed interest for life of the loan, thats probably the best thing to fight for. None of this 24 month lock in periods,. That would help alot of people and get more voters on your side, in reality the numbers are not in your favour, thats probably the only thing you could do to swing more votes in your direction and gain any form of real traction. This would probably be the best move to remove you from the shadows

[@Low760]

Sure but the reality is then people would be locked in for decades potentially at a high rate. And I looked into it a bit and it's not that common anymore to be locked in for decades.

[@glennplumbe7815]

LOL can you also walk on water lol hA AHAHAHAHAH

[@oldbloke204]

So in other words you will drive any private landlords out of the market and there won't be any developments of housing then? I mean who is going to pay a fortune to buy an IP and have little control over it and why would a developer risk all that money and effort for the things you propose. We have family in real estate who are developers and it isn't nearly as easy, risk free and profitable as people seem to think. Lots of money tied up, mostly borrowed, until properties can start to be sold. They also had rentals and basically sold them the week after the Vic. pet laws were talked about. Other family are getting out of the private rental market and going to commercial as it's just easier. Both were good landlords. No mention either of how any of this would be paid for in any way so well done again. A real fairy story imo.

[@Low760]

That doesn't happen though. Go watch Tom Nicols on the u.k housing and you will see it worked if not got privatisation due to Thatcher. Oh no. Did your family then have to sell Thier BMW's and holiday house too?

[@oldbloke204]

It's already happening though in Victoria isn't it? Look at the numbers. Like it or not if you want the private sector to provide housing then it has to be financially viable or the money goes elsewhere. I certainly wouldn't hold the UK up as any sort of example either. Jags., BMW's and Mercs. actually and these folks have worked extremely hard and taken big risks to get where they are so maybe cut the victim talk eh? They actually sold the properties at huge profits at the time which is the point.

[@Christian-qu9ml]

Bullshit! Go and study the Vienna housing market.

[@TzarLatok]

@@oldbloke204 " _It's already happening though in Victoria isn't it?_ " Except none of the suggested policies in the video have been implemented... So if it's already happening in Victoria that's because of completely different policies, right? Yet you want to use current policy to suggest that the suggested policies in the video would "drive any private landlords out of the market". Whether the policies are enacted or not doesn't seem to matter to you, either way it somehow provides evidence the policies wouldn't work.

[@oldbloke204]

@@TzarLatok You seem to struggle with the concept that the people who invest in this market won't if they're virtually going to be wiped out if policies keep getting changed. The policies presented on here are way worse than those that are already causing issues so what do you think will happen? People were warning that if the Govt. kept meddling in the markets, which they have done, then people will find other places to invest, which we have seen. Your argument makes no sense whatsoever imo,

[@6shnuggle6]

Your policy for 30% public housing is a huge flaw. It doesn’t work. The other 70% who work hard and finally purchase something cannot live with housing. These are 2 different systems that don’t mix. The gov has already implemented this system and these buildings will become slums. Additionally social housing needs different class ratings so the bad eggs don’t mix with the good ones.

[@WyndhamHardman]

bro quietly advocating for segregation Jesus christ

[@eucalyptuscaesia]

The current public housing have become degraded as a result of decades of neglect. Who are these "good" and "bad" eggs you speak of? Sounds like you are suggesting 1st and 2nd class system of housing. This is apartheid policy.

[@Luke-wz9wc]

​@@eucalyptuscaesia The bad eggs are the people that trash council housing. One end of my street is council housing, the other is owner occupier. Guess which end has smashed up cars and 6ft piles of trash on the front yard, spray paint being put up on their own homes, constant smashed windows and dogs roaming around without collars. The good eggs are the people mixed amongst those houses who take great care and pride in their homes and maintain them as well, if not better than any owner occupier would.