Here's a thought exercise, and one we would like readers to contribute to via the comment facility below.
Demographic data is available for all age groups from the Statistics NZ Infoshare data resource.
We can make a proposition that a key house-buying age range is the one for those aged 30-34 years. And with that, we can track how many people were in that range over the past 25 years.
We can then make reasonably informed estimates of the demand for housing. What we've found is that demand is set to increase even more in coming years.
We have made a bald assumption that you basically need to be in a partner relationship to afford a house these days (and not the least because two incomes in the early years are likely to be necessary). We have also assumed that 10% of people in this age group don't figure in the housing market for a whole variety of reasons.
And of course, housing demand is not only driven by buyers, it is increasingly driven by renters, even if they are not renters their whole lives.
What we have found with our calculations is that from 1992, this base of demographic demand has risen from about 65,000 to about 140,000 couples today.
Now, we are not suggesting that this is the only age demographic from which housing demand originates. But it is an easier subset from which to view changes.
And the other interesting thing about this age cohort (apart from being able to go back with consistent data by more than one generation), is that the numbers moving into this age group are essentially all known now.
This is because those who will be 30-34 bracket in 2042 are born and are currently aged 5-9 years - we know the number. To them, we need to add net migration in this age group, and we've concluded that to be about 8,000 more per year.
The migration addition is a bold assumption because it assumes the levels of the recent past will continue at the same levels into the future1.
Anyway, with those assumptions, this is what the future suggests.
So, it is a future in which we have already set in quite sharp rises in household formation levels.
The 2017 level of +140,000 will rise to an average of +168,000 per year in the five years straddling each of 2022 and 2027. That is a +20% boost from current levels over the next decade.
The figures fall away somewhat from then. It is important to note, however, that the following 15 years will still all require provision of housing for new households at a faster rate than we currently have.
The future is set to require housing over the next 25 years at levels more than +25% per year in excess of what we have had in the previous 25 years.
And if retirees are living longer, they will be taking longer to free up homes for replacement demand.
New Zealand's focus on housing is set to intensify.
Our economy may currently be seen as 'a housing market with a few cows on the side'. As our analysis shows, however, their is unlikely to be any rebalancing, because increased housing demand is already baked in.
We ask readers for your thoughts and welcome suggestions for areas of focus for future analysis.
1. Perhaps, limiting migrants in this review to 30-34 ages is not correct. Perhaps the migrant need for housing adds to demand in a much wider block of their demographic profile?
79 Comments
Purely from an anecdotal point of view , its rumoured that new migrant arrivals are almost all renters as they are simply not arriving with enough funds for a deposit to buy a home .
If this is true , we really do have a problem.
Firstly , the only new providers of rental stock are the much - maligned investors , and they are running scared right now as interest rates may rise , CGT looks likely if Labour wins , the market is cooling off and the 40% deposit requirement keeps them out of the market .
Secondly, given the scenario outlined , unless the State steps in to provide housing our current problems of affordable housing and even way down the socio-economic ladder to the homeless can only be exacerbated.
And having the State as "house - provider of last resort" is a worst-case scenario because the State does not have either the human resources or the funds readily available to embark on becoming a mass-scale residential property developer .
Quite simply , we need to remove the immigration number from the equation to get on top of this
Actually, even if you removed all immigrants, the future will change very little. The great bulk of the future demographic shift comes from existing population age changes. (I will adjust the chart above to show the immigration assumption for the future - which is the level it is running at now).
Indian student volumes are certainly down considerably, since NZ started saying no to fraudulent documentation. I imagine if we started holding the PTE sector to account for robust standards, attendance, testing etc. we'd see another significant drop in volume.
I know a number of people who came through the PTE sector and are incredibly disappointed with what they got for their money. The schools' excuses were that "No one really expects education, it's just money for a visa". Like, WTF?
I agree. But without a decent labour inspectorate it will mean honest hardworking care-givers on say $45k being sent home and the cheats such as kitchen staff on a theoretical $55k paying back $30 to their bosses.
It is very difficult to plan housing needs if Kiwis can go to Australia without difficulty and return at a moments notice. However the government can always adjust totals for residency - current unofficial quota seems to be about 50,000 but it can be moved up or down very easily. I know that my families permanent residency when it was submitted should have taken 3 or 4 months and then without notice the processing time became minimum of 7 months (no problems with application - it was Winston asking about why Iraqi friends of Saddam Hussein were being accepted for residency so they just stopped working for a while).
For sure, DEMOGRAPHICS will be a key driver of housing activity (and prices) in the medium/long term.
Agree with David (above); even without immigration NZ's population will continue to rise steadily.
Expect to see more apartments as land becomes scarcer and more expensive.
Property located close to the CBD in the main centres (Auckland and Wellington) will become increasingly sought-after.
Undoubtedly, NZ has "rising star" status as a country to reside.
"NZ has "rising star" status as a country to live."
Really?
Look at the skill designations of our immigrants. That does not suggest that it is at all a 'rising star' destination.
If it was so desirable, why wouldn't the mix be more indicative of highly educated individuals?
nymad, would you rather live in:
India, China, Indonesia, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Malaisia, Afghanistan, Kazakstan, Uzbekistan, Mongolia, Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, Iran, Irak,Israel, Egypt, Senegal, Somalia, Ivory Coast, Togo, Libyia, Lebanon, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Kenya, Tanzania, Cameroon, South Africa, Congo, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Venezuela, Panama, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, Samoa, Tonga, Vanuatu, New Caledonia, Fiji... these are from the top of my head before looking at a map.
If your answer is "yes" feel free to move
I suspect nymad's expectation is Auckland future house prices existing in the price vicinity of:
India, China, Indonesia, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Malaisia, Afghanistan, Kazakstan, Uzbekistan, Mongolia, Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, Iran, Irak,Israel, Egypt, Senegal, Somalia, Ivory Coast, Togo, Libyia, Lebanon, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Kenya, Tanzania, Cameroon, South Africa, Congo, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Venezuela, Panama, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, Samoa, Tonga, Vanuatu, New Caledonia, Fiji...
..rather than a continued upward surge in prices.
The new arrivals "baked in" to the market are not in possession of the same access to capital, as that enjoyed by the current owners at time of purchase.
... wow ! ... what an awesome list ... there are some wonderful countries listed there ... superb peoples and cultures , and the most divine cuisines ... those guys are so bloody lucky ... we're stuck here with bleeding boring old NZ , " Land of the Long White Face " ... sigh ...
There are countries that simply sell citizenship. St Lucia being the star. What the buyer is looking for is a citizenship that will get him/her into the maximum number of countries with a Visa waiver. At a guess the going rate is $30,000 but in NZ the money goes to the corrupt PTE and the agents in country of origin.
Pardon - not really relevant to Auckland's housing market. What might be relevant is the preference in some countries for marriage to someone from their place of origin. Meaning they could stop the skilled residency tomorrow but there would still be numerous partnership visas since young Indian students (male and female) usually look for a partner from home once they are settled here.
I imagine there comes a point soon where Auckland/nz loses its appeal to the third world masses. With the immigration changes it will be much harder for unskilled to get here. And then, why would skilled middle class come to Auckland? I assume the middle class in bigger Asian cities have a reasonable existence, sure it might be less polluted here but it's far from family and has a high cost of living.
Surely stories get back to India about doctors coming here then working as taxi drivers???
NZ's population is not going to rise without immigration - these are the latest figures from Statistics NZ:
The total fertility rate dropped to a low of 1.87 births per woman, compared with an annual average of about 2.02 from 1980–2015.
David was proposing that the age band that he considers to be the house-buying demographic will rise regardless of immigration.
Unless you are a house builder does it matter if the population goes down? Chicago has lost a million. Japan is becoming an elderly country and not searching for replacements from abroad. Just think about the ugly places in Auckland and imagine them empty and then pulled down (for me most of the CBD but I'm sure other readers will have other places) and it will put a smile on your face.
I think for NZ a stable population about 4.5 - 5 million would be good. I wasn't advocating immigration to keep the population growing, just pointing out that we don't have natural increase any more.
I read a couple of interesting points recently. One, that as Japan's population is declining GDP per capita is actually increasing. And also, in spite of all the angst about supporting the ageing population, the current number of dependents per worker is still below what we had in 1975, when there were a lot more dependent children.
Thanks Doris for that info about Japan. They seem to be about a generation ahead of China and China with its one child policy will be hit much harder. Do you think China will ask for New Zealand's help at developing a world leading immigration service (that is world leading quantity. Quality varies).
bob atkinson,
In his book Countdown by Alan Weisman,there is some interesting stuff on Japan. Its population seems set to decline from around 120m to 80m and it will be fascinating to observe the consequences.
China has abandoned its one child policy,but there are serious doubts that it will make a substantial difference. China has major water and land problems and really needs a smaller population.
It is showing up in housing. "Despite a deeply rooted national aversion to waste, discarded homes are spreading across Japan like a blight in a garden. Long-term vacancy rates have climbed significantly higher than in the United States or Europe, and some eight million dwellings are now unoccupied, according to a government count. Nearly half of them have been forsaken completely — neither for sale nor for rent, they simply sit there, in varying states of disrepair."
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/24/world/a-sprawl-of-abandoned-homes-in…
the book by Alan Weisman is good to read. It struck me about the middle east, with lots of war and refugees which are coming about partially because of overpopulation.
What is going to happen there in 20 -30 years as the money runs out in places like Saudi (already started) ?? We will have a big demand for them to come here !
Dealing with the abandoned houses and suburbs will have to be done. But with much better results and a fraction of the costs of increasing infrastructure. (eg the new interchange and Avondale tunnel).
Folk will pick the best areas to live, which is a step up from now, where many just have to settle for anywhere they can get.
It's a pretty one dimensional thesis, this.
Sure aggregate population is going to increase, but in terms of housing affordability it is going to be more related to distributional population.
Labor mobility is going to be the key driver of housing prices, not the aggregate growth number.
Simply, our population is rapidly growing from a base of relatively unskilled and low income demographics. As the proportion of this increases, the relative mobility/transitivity of the workforce is going to increase substantially. Typically, this is subdued by the lock in effects of owner occupied housing.
Case in point, Auckland.
Auckland has a huge demand for low skill/industrial jobs. Auckland also isn't generating real income increases. In fact the opposite is likely the case. At the rate Auckland is going, the workforce will collapse due to either unaffordability on the workers side, or unaffordability on the manufacturers side.
Given a high transitive workforce, Auckland fast loses any production advantages relative to Hamilton or Tauranga.
What we need to be watching are the rates at which commercial property leases in manufacturing and distribution sectors are being renewed, along with their terms. As well as the demand for industrial land in substitute locations.
I dont see it as a one-dimensional thesis , its more a synopsis of a scenario to stimluate a discussion .
Sure , various elements may change , prices may fall and wages may increase , but I would assume both will take time to materialise
What is of concern is the Auckland is already way too expensive for middle class workers such as Teachers , policemen and women and retail staff and general admin staff . Tradies are all up to their eyeballs paying off the flash Ute , so they dont even get a look in .
If fact as a professional , I can say its already too expensive for your average younger Doctor , Lawyer , Accountant , Architecht and Engineer .
Of course it is one dimensional. It says that due to increasing population, there is likely rising housing demand.
My point being that may be the case in Auckland if nothing changes but it's inconsequential if all that population chooses to reside in areas with an elastic supply of housing. i.e. there is no consequence if supply can react to demand changes.
As for the rest of your comment, you just repeat what I stated.
Just got my copy of the latest Police Association newsletter, and there's agitation in there about ability of police to live in Auckland, and points out that for the newer hires they can't afford to rent or buy, and that their choice is to leave the job or leave the city. Points out that the only police who can afford to live there are the ones pushing retirement. Points out that this is a hell of a problem in a profession which needs to be matched to population numbers, as with teachers and medical professionals, and there are noises being made re an accommodation allowance.
Yep it has been on the cards for a long time, indeed.
You can guarantee that the 'logical' solution from the government will be to subsidise private accommodation these professions.
In the end, rents increase further. Building takes place at the same glacial pace.
Auckland doesn't do anything to increase it's huge infrastructure deficit or decrease it's borrowing.
It really is going to be chaos.
I agree, accommodation allowances/subsidies are a great way to prop up house prices beyond what the market can afford, they're no way to solve a housing crisis. If the government could do anything, it should try to make locations other than Auckland more attractive to live and easier to do business in (e.g., if you're going to drop billions into infrastructure, don't drop it in Auckland).
As far as forecasting future demographics goes, that's always fraught. Demographics around housing and households are way more flexible and responsive than most forecasters think. The masses and the trends they follow can and do change in rapid, frightening and exciting ways. The world we'll be living in in 2042 is yet to be created and only a few can even dream it.
I agree, and not just loss of low skill jobs to the rest of NZ.
Auckland has become so expensive, that it is one real-estate correction from being losing large chunks of its skilled workers to Australia. The Australians have recently opened up a pathway for Kiwis to get Aussie citizenship (after a decade of blocking it).
If Winston or Labour get in, and close the immigration fire hose as they have been promising, perhaps all we need is an empty house tax to solve this issue. Even Gareth Morgan has six empty investment houses https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/04/19/gareth-morgan-and-multiple-empty-…. If additional building is required, state housing/apartments construction is also great way to train a heap of apprentices that we need as well, and open the door to more Australian based building material prices that are much lower than the existing NZ materials duopoly.
Of course this would all contribute to reducing house prices, but would rather my tax money went to that vs.continuing to pump working for family's dollars to fund investor tax loss debt, and Bank profits, who are doing very nicely thank-you.
Am seeing lot property in market that are for sale were mostly bought last year. Assume that they must have been bought to cash in on fast capital appreciation (as were bought and rented out) but as situation has changed are trying to sell and if they get the original price that they paid last year, will still make a lose as will have to pay agent commission of appox $25000 to $30000 from their pocket that is, if they get the last year price.
Many are also selling as with no capital appreciation, they do not have to pay tax as no profit and the risk of fall or flat is more than upside so even from investment point, it is wise to sell now if they do not plan to hold for long period or book reasonable lose in uncertain market.
Saw one property that was sold last year for appox $848000 in pakuranga and is now on sale again and expecting to sale for anything upward of $88000 to cover the cost and when checking found that it was bought by a Chinese and was rented.
The process has just started.
A commendable essay but in my opinion, it's based upon too many assumptions: 30-34 year old is a very narrow band, also over the years the"house buying age" is going up. Future immigration levels can also only be assumed as are too many unknown future variables.
I do agree with the conclusion that demand for housing will continue to rise for the simple fact that 1) there is natural population growth within NZ and 2) NZ is an attractive place to live in compared to the majority of countries around the world.
Excellent piece David, a nice effort to shed some light on future possibilities.
I agree that the next 5-10 years will be challenging for the housing supply and accommodation in general ... two points come to mind:
1- The state could never address the demand side no matter who is in government - for so many different reasons. So the private sector needs to have / given enough incentives to participate effectively in the solution - that will mostly be governed by supply and demand.
2- Prices will go up based on the above ONLY to such levels where people can afford to buy - so there will always be a breaking price point at which both investors and owners will stop at at any given time/year and revisit costs and quantities. Any fiddling with this process messes the whole thing up.
Surely population growth is one of the reasons we have property cycles among other external influences.
Immigration is a significant factor too ( in all age groups) whether they rent available properties or buy new and existing stock, so eventually they will increase demand.
I dare to suggest, that unless the Government engages in a process of MASS vertical building of apartment / townhouse units to house the coming demand wave in the next 10 years just like it has been done in all the cities going through the same problem, then this issue will not go away at all ... this process requires BOLD decisions of engaging local and o/seas investment AND regulating or bypassing the current obstacles & bottlenecks ( like the Auckland city council and RMA) and bring in foreign investments and labor to execute such a plan in 5 years. ... No.8 wire DIY attitude does not work in such huge projects, neither will paying excessive attention to environmental tree huggers and NIMBYs.
Such Major projects need to put "local protectionism aside for a while" and work towards the common good of the people, and that needs a strong gutsy government.
two examples come to mind: I pass along two huge Golf courses in Auckland that are sitting on acres of prime land used only by a handful of people every week when you can easily house over 10,000 on each of them in 3 years - there are many acres of empty paddocks used as horse and pony clubs ( used only on sunny weekends by a handful) which will certainly house 1000s of people each -
If there is a will there will be a solution - but as long as we keep mending the same piece of torn fabric on hand, the problem will keep getting bigger with every needed birth and every immigrant.
Gee eco bird. Even in highly built up areas you need some spaces in between. So we need those golf courses and pony clubs. Look at Manhattan and the value (not dollar value) placed upon Central Park. Even itsy bitsy spaces like Washington Square Park and Bryant Park are highly prized.
See London's east end Victoria Park - when I lived there the houses facing the park were worth double the identical houses one row back. That is why I bought next to Eskdale domain and I still can't understand why it makes no difference to house prices in Birkdale.
Ecobird,
For those to be converted to housing intensive housing in a profitable manner Auckland Council would need to sell the land at about 50% discount below current land values. This is because Auckland land prices are BS crazy too expensive. And even then it would only deliver a few 1000s more homes.
Auckland Council could easily provide additional 10,000s more homes by opening up the land at Ardmore or Whitford or even around the Upper Harbour Highway. Auckland Council have spent the last decade making sure land prices are BS crazy too expensive.
thank you for the analysis DC. It's good to see a different perspective from the Nats who seem excited about the immigration figure, while never seeing beyond the monthly figure. We need a few more and various views on the debate. As you know I propose a stable population as fundamental economic / environmental policy.
Good discussion.
The information David has provided is not spatial. It's an aggregate national calculation.
That's fine for what it is, but really the spatial element is critical.
How many ageing Aucklanders will move out of the region?
How many young people will move out of the region, or not come to it in the first place?
How much will the latter be influenced by population growth in centres like Tauranga and Hamilton? Large population growth in these centres will create more and more job options in these centres, and likely reduce the gravitational pull of Auckland as an employment centre.
The growth of Tauranga and Hamilton will 'snowball'. ie. Population growth, will lead to job growth, will lead to population growth, will lead to job growth...
I see 'Peak Auckland' as not being that far away.
Then Peak Tauranga and Peak Hamilton in 20-30 years time
What happens if Auckland Council hires some barely competent planners who find land close to Auckland for suburbs?
Auckland's supremely stupid current transportation planners believe that the very best locations for suburbs are huge sprawls around:
- Warkworth.
- Pukekohe.
- Northwest Kumeu.
- Silverdale.
- Clarks Beach.
- Wellsford.
Maybe Auckland planning could achieve the dizzying height of sub-par mediocrity.
It doesn't matter what planning division is involved, AKL Council is decisively incompetent.
There is a huge amount of developable land close to the city, it just means that, like all big cities, intensification is required.
Simple.
Likewise, there is a huge amount of land 30kms out. However, the infrastructure won't be planned accordingly. Anyone who travels that nice stretch of road between the motorway and Kumeu knows that.
Since the 1950s Auckland has been plagued with incompetence and bureaucracy. I can't see that changing anytime soon.
Auckland is in deep trouble.
That should be evident to anyone who takes a look at the facts.
Fritz,
From the list above that Auckland Council think are the very best sites for new suburbs, choose any and go visit. On the way you will notice some large green spaces out of the window, where cows or sheep or ponies or llamas graze. That is land close to Auckland for suburbs.
Since 1.00pm today [10/07/2017], when this thread began, until now [7.00pm], Auckland's population has risen by another 22 people.
So it would be unwise to ignore DEMOGRAPHICS, as much as the word terrifies certain people here.
People have to live somewhere - and most want a structure with a floor, a roof and walls. Hence, demand for housing expands.
Yes I agree tothepoint. If you are a landlord you don't have to worry about finding tenants at all especially if the property is close to the city. A good illustration would be my rental in Mission Bay. I'm currently looking for tenants, very close to Eastridge shopping centre and public transport. I am expecting it to be snapped up within the next 2-3 days.
http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential-property-to-rent/auction-…
I think you will always struggle if you aren't offering good value. Run down accommodation gets you run down tenants in this sort of environment.
We may not always see eye to eye, but property like that is a credit to the landlord.
Kudos on that, along with not having some clip the ticket BS 'letting fee'.
looks like you you might have negative equity now...
https://www.trademe.co.nz/property/insights/address/Auckland/Mission-Ba…
Hi DGZ,
Always good to hear from you.
That's a nice place - and you're asking a very reasonable rental for sought-after Mission Bay.
Would you like to cut me a deal? Only problem is I'm not a posh suburb boy....... I know my station in life and it's the slums of the southern suburbs for me, I'm afraid.
Very simplistic analysis IMO.
It would be appropriate to show a correlation between the number of people in the selected age group and house price for the past before making any assessment about how this number will affect the house prices in the future (I am using price as a proxy for demand, which should be a reasonable assumption...). If I were to take the conclusion in the article at face value, then I would then conclude that house prices should have declined rather significantly from 2007 to 2012, and in 2017 still be below the 2007 value. This is because of the rather significant decline in the number of people in the selected age group from 2007 to 2012 as per the graph above, which if the hypothesis put forward by David was accurate would have resulted in a quite different outcome than the actual result. The number of people in 2017 is still lower than the 2007 number. Why is it that house prices have increased so significantly in the past decade? There appears to be little correlation in the past between the metric proposed in this article and housing demand. Why should this change in the future?
House prices fell in real terms between 2008 (peak) and 2011, by 15%. Between 2007 and 2012 prices increased slightly overall. See figure 4.
http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/-/media/ReserveBank/Files/Publications/Bulletin…
However that 2011-12 jump is explainable by the earthquake Christchurch, nothing to do with Auckland. (Even though Auckland land price inflation is insane, and did start in the early 2010s, its effect wasn't that big.) So the theory is valid, within its constraints.
Interesting comments here.
For the proposed correlation to be valid, then real home prices in 2017 should be lower than in 2007. This is clearly not accurate The largest jump in this age cohort is 1997 to 2002, a period that has almost no real house price change as based on the referenced RBNZ paper.
One should look at ALL of the correlation points, not just the one point that can be argued to be in agreement with the hypothesis.
I'm a bit grumpy at the moment, as I am dealing with too many people that are evaluating only the data that is in agreement with their world view, and discarding dissenting data. I also see a bit of this in this article and the response.
The proposed correlation in this article is likely to be a factor, but is only one factor of many in the aggregate housing demand. When there are likely on the order of a dozen material factors involved, focusing on a single factor as a proxy for the summation of factors is a bit simplistic, silly, and likely misleading IMO.
I'd be curious to understand why the rate of change in the couples age 30-34 is so different than the rate of change for individuals in the same age group. The data for the past from the same source as given in the article shows that the number of resident individuals in the country peaked in 1996 and has only recently gotten close to the same value. Why is it that the couples of the same age group has almost doubled for the same time period?
Ref: http://www.stats.govt.nz/infoshare/ViewTable.aspx?pxID=04f2ddfd-bfe6-4b…
or to see all age groups:
Ref: http://www.stats.govt.nz/infoshare/ViewTable.aspx?pxID=7e6ee4f6-2751-49…
I tried to find the source data for the basis of this article on InfoShare, but was unsuccessful. David, can you provide a link for the source data on couples age 30-34 resident in NZ? I am curious to understand how it is so different in number from the number of individuals aged 30-34 resident in NZ.
I have just watched this interview with Douglas Murray discussing his book, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam. I have not read it but will certainly be buying it and think it should be compulsory reading for all out politicians especially National. He discusses arguments that there has been no economic benefit in the UK from immigration. So if these figures are already baked in we do not need immigration on top
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsFBjKuRy4M
If any one has the time to watch this, I would love to know what you think
Stefan Molyneux, a Canadian, always produces good commentaries and interviews. I highly recommend listening to him. Jordan Peterson, another Canadian, is also well worth investing some time in. People should stop wasting time watching TV and mass entertainment and seek to be informed by blokes such as these. With modern Internet enabled televisions YouTube provides an invaluable resource of videos for those seeking a sensible way forward. You don't have to be online either as i am sure these guys don't mind you downloading and listening to their stuff offline. Whenever i go on long car journeys now I listen to these things as I drive in order to stay informed. Many Aucklanders can do the same while stuck in the morning commute turning what was once a waste of time into a valuable experience.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.