If National wins ...

[elZorro]

From the Politik post:

But the reality is that the Government is flying blind.
Because the immigration forecasts have proved to be so unreliable, it cannot with any certainty predict house demand even two or three years out.

So net immigration in 2019 could be 10,000 incoming, or 70,000, or higher, lower, negative, or in between. There would be a big impact from the extremes of those figures. We rely on Treasury projections? Don't forget that National rode in on no policies in 2008, except a BS projection from Treasury that Labour would have to borrow heavily to meet their spending, and it would take 10 years before they were back to surplus. National fixed that, they just posted record deficits for years on end, borrowed $70,000 million, and dropped the tax rate for the well off.

The govt could control the amount of immigration of non-NZers, it has been done before. Obviously they won't do that before the 2017 elections, they're not that crazy. Meanwhile the floodgates are open, that's the message that is going out. Those buying houses in Auckland to get in on the bonanza, have at least until late 2017 to make a profit, and get out before the inevitable crash.

[winner69]

All this discussion about how many immigrants we should or not have.

One thing that allways amazes me is that more NZ citizens leave NZ than come back. since the mid 70's there has been a net outflow of NZ citizens of 680,000 - about 17,000 a year.

Maybe thats where Winston gets his 15,000 limit on new immigrants from?


But why do more NZers leave than come back?

The rhetoric of past economic reform always has a bit of NZ being a place worth returning to ...hmm

[macduffy]

All this talk of limiting immigration has me worried. If we do, where will our fast food workers come from?

(Official figures show that fast food workers was one of the three top occupation groups in last year's immigration stats. Presumably a skill shortage there.)

[fungus pudding]

All this discussion about how many immigrants we should or not have.

One thing that allways amazes me is that more NZ citizens leave NZ than come back. since the mid 70's there has been a net outflow of NZ citizens of 680,000 - about 17,000 a year.

Maybe thats where Winston gets his 15,000 limit on new immigrants from?


But why do more NZers leave than come back?

Bigger populations grow, applies to cities and countries, and people worldwide drift towards the equator; i.e. north in NZ

[Bjauck]

All this discussion about how many immigrants we should or not have.

One thing that allways amazes me is that more NZ citizens leave NZ than come back. since the mid 70's there has been a net outflow of NZ citizens of 680,000 - about 17,000 a year...

Kiwis leave to seek challenges, further their careers or to seek a better life. They are replaced in NZ by migrants who come to NZ to seek challenges, further their careers or to seek a better life.
How many foreign migrants arrive in NZ, stay and obtain citizenship, go back to their birth countries or skip over to Australia or go elsewhere?
How many second generation Kiwis go to their parents birth countries?
With a UK grandparent, a patriality certificate gives a Commonwealth citizen the right of abode in the UK.

[elZorro]

Here's proof of something I had suspected from looking at old election results: there are plenty of voters who are "Not National" when it comes to placing their vote. They're wary of National, and they should be. The trouble for Labour in recent elections, is that the party vote counts of these people is split mostly into the Labour-Green-NZ First camps, in varying amounts.

Some previous Labour supporters have instead given their vote to NZ First, as a protest perhaps over rapid changes in leadership in the past. Straight after the recent MoU between Labour and the Greens, Labour's percentage went from 26% to 31%, a massive jump that pulled the average vote in the Colmar Brunton poll for Labour to 29% (the poll straddled the MoU announcement). NZ First's vote went down.

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti...ectid=11652346

I was speaking to a Labour Party supporter the other day, this person had been pushing for a stronger link between Labour and the Greens for many years, and was delighted with the announcement. It's this sort of belief that things will change - that we'll see a Change of Government in 2017 - that has got the activists fired up, along with many in the general public.

Yeah, Nah. No way is National going to curb high levels of immigration this side of the election.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/politi...ict-work-visas

[Daytr]

Bill English scare mongering yesterday saying that if immigration was reigned in it would threaten the housing market and pressure on the RBNZ to raise interest rates! This is the guy who runs our economy! Interest rates are likely to go even lower if housing cooled! Its the one area that the RBNZ has been weary of when reducing rates and why they have had specific policy for the Auckland market.

Where is this man's credibility? Just ludicrous logic.

[fungus pudding]

Here's proof of something I had suspected from looking at old election results: there are plenty of voters who are "Not National" when it comes to placing their vote. They're wary of National, and they should be. The trouble for Labour in recent elections, is that the party vote counts of these people is split mostly into the Labour-Green-NZ First camps, in varying amounts.
]

I think you'll find they're split into numbers, not amounts. Same applies to both major parties. A large % of people vote not for which party they want, as much as against the party they do not want and/or see as a threat - e.g me. If Labour had no association at all with the greens they would have far higher support.

[Bjauck]

Bill English scare mongering yesterday saying that if immigration was reigned in it would threaten the housing market and pressure on the RBNZ to raise interest rates! This is the guy who runs our economy! Interest rates are likely to go even lower if housing cooled! Its the one area that the RBNZ has been weary of when reducing rates and why they have had specific policy for the Auckland market.

Where is this man's credibility? Just ludicrous logic.

I think it has been said that if the building rate were increased now, by the time these new starts were completed, demand factors could be such that the new builds would create a glut of housing with consequent dangerous price falls! It underlines the fact that demand and price moderation by curbing foreign investors, foreign immigration and investor demand should have been introduced years ago.

[elZorro]

I think you'll find they're split into numbers, not amounts. Same applies to both major parties. A large % of people vote not for which party they want, as much as against the party they do not want and/or see as a threat - e.g me. If Labour had no association at all with the greens they would have far higher support.

Quite right, I should have said numbers, not amounts. Every vote is precious of course - parties would like to have their canvassers speak to every voter in the electorate, personally. How to do that, with the resources and the time constraints, is the issue.

I'm curious as to how you came up with that last sentence, though, FP. Surely if Labour would be better off going it alone, the recent polling would have moved in the opposite direction? It didn't move in the way you wanted it to move, so maybe your logic is flawed.

Could it be that the "Not National, thanks" voters have been waiting for this MoU event, and thoroughly endorse it? That's more likely. If it begins to look more certain that a Labour-Green coalition will take out the 2017 election, I'd expect soft National voters to move left also, as there are plenty of voters who just like to be on the winning side. They're not that worried either way.