Similar Posts

5 Comments

  1. The Announcement doesn’t seem that bad to me. I’m glad they will be responsible about immigration. I doubt he could have done much else though, as high immigration has lost a lot of credibility.

    Here’s an economic analysis of what Shaw has proposed:
    https://croakingcassandra.com/2016/10/19/rethinking-immigration-policy-the-greens/

    Here’s a good introduction to why we should lower immigration: https://croakingcassandra.com/2016/10/14/businessnz-argues-for-more-immigration/

    But yeah Ben, I’m extremely disappointed that they are missing their chance.

  2. Hard to believe the NZ left is blaming immigrants. No increase in the overall number of social houses since 1992.
    We’ve turned housing into an investment / commodity.
    Last Labour Govt were largely responsible for this, and their current policies show they still pander to property speculators.

    Labour have a lame social housing policy. Labour are building affordable housing for the middle and upper class. Labour are a party for the landlords.

    If people think immigrants are the problem then they need to do some thinking. It’s pretty fucken basic. It’s a class – the Left should understand that.

  3. the personal insults to one side – i pretty much agree with petersens’ rejoinder..

    i see it as being in part a sop to peters – so he can sell a coalition with the greens to his more choleric/rabid supporters..

    and to attempt to blame our low-wage/high living cost/grossly unequal economy on immigrants is just bullshit-on-a-stick..

    and my takeaway from this piece is:

    ‘In normal times this would be politically silly, but in a time where political alternatives are having a moment it is downright insanity.

    Current international experiences should be giving the Greens enthusiasm to push an ambitious political platform.’

    colour me puzzled that the greens seem to have missed that populist-wave..the calls for fixing what ails us..

    (.and a benchmark of the low-expectations being foisted on us by political parties..is the recent discussion of ‘the ambitious target’ (yes..that was their fucken actual words) of ‘a 10% reduction in poverty’..
    that’s the best we can hope for..?..are you fucken kidding me..?..)

    why are the greens not seeing this..?..and gearing up to be the corbynistas/berners of new zealand…?
    are they really going to just miss this bus..?

    and become a slightly greener nz first..?

    that is/will be nowhere fucken good enough..

  4. Surely the flood of immigrants into NZ is playing straight into the natz hands by driving wages down and getting more people into struggle street so the rich can have their brighter future. It is also putting unbearable stress on housing and infrastructure throughout the country.
    It is a major issue and needs addressing now and Winston, love him or hate him, has tapped into it and is creaming it. I find it quite frightening contemplating how well he is going to do in the coming election. Personally I am sticking with the Greens because they have a great team and I think this latest move Shaw has made on immigration is good for the left coalition, which needs to be strong if we are to have any chance against the paid up National Machine.

  5. There is a degree of cherry picking in this rebuttal of the Greens shift.

    Post war baby boom is well acknowledged but our population numbers were much lower then, a fraction of today’s numbers, with a less depleted environment, greater resilience of manufacture and a smaller reliance on imports for mainstream lifestyle. Wages and vocational training were significantly better and tertiary education was state funded. Taxation rates were more progressive and bankers were still recovering from the great advances made by Labour in the mid 1930s.

    The sound state welfare policies were less corroded and unions were strong as the need for unions was still fresh in the minds of those who had seen grimmer times.

    There are many other factors also not touched upon so a fuller picture is just not encompassed in this criticism.

    As our land resources shrink with a larger base population, any additions in numbers demand a rising cost across more than housing and infrastructure. Our goods have a larger transport and oil component and our food sources are more removed from resident populations.

    Saturation in its various forms will force lifestyle changes which are not well received by the general public but demanded by the investor state to increase their fiscal harvest. We all pay the cost.
    Controlling population numbers is a no brainer.

    There are too many people in the world – completely unsustainable. We should actively discourage population growth and discourage other nations from increasing their numbers.
    To shift from that position is a nonsense no matter what spin is put upon it. Economics and investment arguments are a state of denial, usually floated by confusion, short sightedness and / or profit motives.

    Multi nationals have no regards for anything but their bottom line without responsibility for the consequences. We carry them both.

Comments are closed.