By Bernard Hickey
This week the Government got back to work in earnest, borrowing a record NZ$950 million in one week, mostly from foreign banks and pension funds.
It's been like this for most working weeks for the last 2 years or so and is expected to be like this for another year or two. Usually the amount borrowed per week is around NZ$300 million, but strong demand from one foreign borrower was cited for the boost.
Buried amid all of the government's soothing talk about weaker growth and a slightly bigger deficit in the short term, was an announcement about a NZ$1 billion increase in government borrowing in the current financial year to NZ$13.5 billion.
That works out at NZ$270 million a week for 50 weeks of the year. Even in the last week before Christmas the New Zealand Debt Management Office (NZDMO), which is part of Treasury, announced it had sold NZ$250 million worth of 7 year and 10 year bonds with coupon rates (annual interest rates) of 6%.
Then this week it launched another sale of NZ$950 mln of bonds, again offering 5% and 6%.
Reserve Bank figures show that foreign holdings of these New Zealand government bonds have risen from NZ$14.4 billion to NZ$24.5 billion over the last two years and that foreign interests now hold about 65% of all government bonds held in private hands.
These weekly announcements of bond sales are, in effect, the sound of New Zealand sucking in foreign debt to pay for a structural budget deficit. The inevitable result of this sucking now is a blowing out of interest payments overseas in years to come, typically at a rate of 5-6% per annum for the next 10 to 20 years, just when we can least afford it as our baby boomers retire at great extra expense.
The government expects to issue NZ$59.5 billion worth of new bonds over the next five years. Given around two thirds of them (NZ$40 billion) are likely to be sold to foreign investors, that amounts to extra interest payments out of around NZ$2.4 billion a year for the next 10 years or so, which will add to our current account deficit.
It means we all have to work a little bit harder just to pay our way in the world, or, we have to borrow that much more to keep paying the bill.
This is all do-able while interest rates stay low.
What if they don't fall? What if New Zealand's credit rating is downgraded, as is now being considered by Standard and Poor's? A much safer and cheaper way for the government to borrow is from local small savers, rather than big foreign ones.
Why doesn't the government make a serious effort to borrow from Mums and Dads in New Zealand? Borrowing that NZ$40 billion locally would make our current account deficit much healthier over the long term.
It would also provide a much safer and higher returning investment option for Mum and Dad investors burnt badly by stock markets and finance companies in recent years. As it turns out, the NZDMO does already offer Mums and Dads the option of investing in 'Kiwibonds', but only for 6 month, 1 year and 2 year terms at interest rates of just 2.75%, 3% and 3.75% respectively. Meanwhile, the government is paying foreign savers 6% for 7 year and 10 year bonds.
The key problem for Mum and Dad investors and the government is the maturity of the borrowing.
The government wants the certainty of borrowing long term, but Mums and Dads tend to save for much shorter terms, around the 12 month mark. If only the two could be brought together the government could reduce our future current account deficits, reduce the future risk of losing sovereignty to foreign creditors and increase investment returns for local savers.
There is actually plenty of term deposits for the government to target if it was serious.
Reserve Bank figures show household deposits and PIE (Portfolio Investment Entities) in banks totalled NZ$100.8 billion at the end of November, up from NZ$92.3 billion two years earlier.
The growth of those savings by Mums and Dads in banks was almost exactly the same as the extra amount borrowed from foreign savers by the government over the same period. Mums and Dads typically were earning around 4.5% (before tax) on six month term deposits from banks over the last two years.
The government, meanwhile, was paying foreign savers around 5.5% on its borrowing. Surely local savers could be put together with the biggest local borrower (the government) to cut out the middlemen (the banks) and reduce our foreign debt risk?
It would require Mums and Dads to invest for longer terms and for the government to borrow for shorter terms and perhaps pay slightly more for it. This is a wider opportunity than for the central government.
Local governments will be borrowing heavily for infrastructure in the next decade and face the same problem.
Our governments need to get together with Mums and Dads to solve this problem and reduce the nation's future risks.
59 Comments
Bernard,
A very thought provoking article ( as usual from the BH ) with which I entirely agree.
We simply have to focus on the external accounts in the dire situation we are currently in where our 10 yr Govt stock secondary price is now ranked 3 rd below Greece and Portugal - two basket cases. ( FT Bond Prices )
I would argue we simply don't have the luxury of time anymore to carry on as before after 40 years of current account deficits. More of the same is not going to work - and certainly not in the current FX regime.
2011 may well be a very interesting year.
I completely agree Hugh. It would be a lot more expedient and cost effective to stop the bleed and 'feel da burn' of some actual structural reforms.
Why have we not seen a cost cutting machete massacre in non-productive government departments?
I'll tell you why - public sector employees, welfare beneficiaries, tertiary students and super-annuitants comprise a powerful voting bloc. Key et al. simply cannot afford to piss them off.
Yet the government is happy to watch plane loads of motivated, skilled kiwis head offshore every week in search of better opportunities - this is the real tragedy - the loss of our greatest asset - we are being left with an ever burgeoning non productive sector.
I get the feeling that they are softening us up for some change post election - but the reality is that there is no pleasant way to get the job done - unfortunately this limp-wristed popularity contest approach is simply only resulting in a cancerous atrophy.
We need real leadership - and truly great leaders confront problems head on, tell the truth and get the populace on board by selling the solution and the plan no matter how tough it is.
I am beginning to doubt if Mr Key has those qualities.
JFK was looking at doing the same thing in the USA with 'silver certificates', look what happened to him.
Mums and Dads deposited the same amount extra in term deposits as the amount raised offshore during the same period. There's plenty there.
Yes the banks would have to compete harder for funding. It may even push up deposit rates. Is that a bad thing?
cheers
Bernard
At the moment - Yes! - it is a 'bad' thing to get the banks to compete for deposits, onshore. The objective, during this downturn, is for the country to borrow as cheaply as it can. If we need to use the Crown balance sheet to achieve that; then so be it. The answer, though, is to use the funding well. That is a wholley different debate.
Fool you if you deposit your savings in a bank spectre...much better safer returns at finance companies with GG right now and staying oncall means you can shift your savings out of any danger overnight to aus. Means keeping both eyes on the ball.
What do you think John Key does. His loot is not in a bank deposit. The best move savers could do is leave the banks. At the least that would force them to raise the rates. It would bring an end to the property ponzi madness and result in savers and thrifty people being able to afford a property without becoming serfs to a bloody bank.
Great policy...get it into tangible assets before they debase it to death. I see the official debasement rate for this year is 4%....which means it's really nearer 6%....way to go...get your moosli now cos it'll be a dam sight dearer by winter...heaps of food items one should store away...higher prices are on the way...Talking aboot food...heaps of Rabbits around on the farm...must get a cross bow.
How was the recent property bubble not a Ponzi-like scheme?
Or a pyramid scheme?
It was all based upon inflated claims of never-ending high returns - "Capital Gains!!!"
The suckers were exhorted to "Get in quick, before it's too late!!!", and assured that they "Can't lose with property!!!".
The first wave of players pile in and buy, then onsell to the next wave of suckers, who buy in at a higher price, then sell for an even higher "capital gain".
And on it went, with wave after wave of suckers paying ever more money and selling for increasingly greater profits, all the while driving property prices to insanely high levels.
But it couldn't last, not when the late-coming suckers were subsisting on the same incomes as those of the first wave, but going into much higher debt to play the inevtiably untenable game.
The fundamentals finally caught up, as all non-morons knew they must, and eventually a huge number of people with hideously unservicable mortgages suddenly realised how badly they'd allowed themselves to be had.
There's no such thing as free money...it all has to come from somewhere and be repaid to somebody.
Think you had better look up and see what a' ponzi scheme' is.
All that has been happening is capitalism at work, and there are ups and downs. The 2 basic financial motivations are greed and fear, and both are losing strategies. If you are too fearful of doing much, you get nowhere, and even get a bit resentful seeing those who have succeeded (tall poppy syndrome is still alive), but you get too carried away that can result in grief as well. May be play your hand but don't overplay it.
Hi Bernard.
I neglected to mention that I agree with your proposal. But I am jingoistically biased towards all ideas that benefit New Zealand and New Zealanders directly.
As for the banks, they will figure out a way of profiting from any new policy landscape - they always do.
The problem will be with convincing buildings full of free market Zombies in Wellington that it is of benefit to impinge on the rational purity of the free markets.
There will be some half-baked economic theory that mathematically proves that borrowing and paying interest domestically to New Zealanders is a bad idea.
But I do also believe that we would be even better off by living within our means as a country, or as kiwidave pointed out, borrowing for productive purposes.
We have some. It is all sitting as Oz dollars, pounds and euros at lowish or zero interest rates. Differentials increasing by a bit could justify repatriation even at current exchange rates. We are really ready for when the dollar shifts gear.
Ours is only half a mil but there would be others with a similar situation, I am sure.
Also there will be those with business income sitting on the sidelines waiting for the NZD to move favourably.
Regrettably JK does not have the political guts to shift the dollar. It would create some inflation in an election year but we should all take a good hard look at China. The major reason for its success is pushing exports with the help of an undervalued currency
I read it ALL Iain and quite frankly it made me sick! What a f...ing waste of time our media are and as for Bollard, why is he not facing investigations over this or atleast FIRED? The guy is an utter muppet!
Clearly there was much insider knowledge to many of the privilaged about these finance companies etc yet NOT ONE investigation is ongoing as to who these people were and are. Focusing on Hubbard etc by the media is nothing but a diversion. Government had a role in this. Many MP's and very high up 'well to do' public servants must of known what was going on? They had a duty to inform the public at large BUT when they too are shareholders or know their mates are, well all bets are off i guess. It's quite clear as day as to why finance companies were included in the GGS.
What did you know Bernard? Surely YOU have many insiders who tell you many things? Why the hell do you allow Bollard and others to go scott free over this? He basically admits he's ignorant of how things work and gets others to manipulate the media so they don't show him up!
@ Ian Parker, @ Justice
Excellent work. Perhaps the other boot has just dropped. At the height of the GFC many central banks guaranteed deposit taking banks in order to avoid a run on cash reserves. NZ was the ONLY country in the world to extend that guarantee to non-deposit-taking finance companies. Few if any finance companies hold "at-call" monies which could have been subject to a "run". The only reasonable explanation is the RBNZ had its arm twisted by powerful influence peddler(s). One can only speculate who that would have been. Do you think it could have been the Timaru-Top-Cat who turned down two knighthoods?. Go back and examine closely Hickey's interview of Bollard where Hickey asks the question "why did you extend the guarantee to the finance companies". Watch Bollards non-answer and how Hickey gives it a pass without saying to Bollard "very interesting, but, now, could you answer the question" The interview smelled like a set-up, where Hickey was given a list of "dorothy-dix" questions he could ask, and some he could ask, but wouldnt answers to.
Hi Iain, I read it this morning but I do read all your posts so I was aware of the facts you posted . I posted on this site that SCF were going to be in trouble way before the GG was introduced, the Taxpayer was stitched up good and proper and we will probably never know who benefited, a very sad time in our history, is there more to come?
Hi Iain, brain back at 80% today, so read the post - was also willing to risk carpal tunnel from scroll wheel overuse today :-)
Revealing stuff esp. the first bit on the visiting economist. Unfortunately, it pretty much confirms every paranoid thought that I have had re: the system.
Us plebes are just grist to the mill aren't we.
The question is: WTF do we do about it? I can't figure that one out..... any ideas?
Maybe it's time many of us questioned the NZ media about this basic pandering to corporate and government interests over and above the interests of the NZ taxpayer? This blatant corruption (no other word for it) cost the country almost 2 billion $! I want answers! I demand answers!
To put these horrific borrowings in perspective ....
Assume say 6-7% down the track on $ 13 Billion new offshore borrowings - rough numbers - an additional ~ $ 1B annual interest.
This equates to roughly our entire Kiwifruit or Wine industries annual export earnings !
So we have to create a new Kiwifruit or Wine industry every year just to service the interest on each years incremental borrowing at these levels.
As this clearly isn't going to happen - we have to think what will - and it can not be other than very serious outcomes.
This is not going to end well - but end it will.
The only question is when.
That's scary JB, you would think that before borrowing money one should have some sort of plan on how that debt is to be serviced. This is starting to look like a compounding debt trap and it's not as if this debt is being created to develop any industry (like , say, the Manapouri project) that will earn it's way. It's being borrowed to pay the house keeping and is making our current account far worse.
We are now even more reliant on the production of our rural/provincial areas - the cities have totally dropped the ball when it comes to export generation, adding value to primary production or import substitution. I don't believe it can be caused by their higher housing costs or inefficient transport networks. So we have the cities consuming way more than they produce and getting higher pay as well. What's up with that?
the cities have totally dropped the ball when it comes to export generation, adding value to primary production or import substitution.
Not so. Correct is that obsolete monetary policy (knee-caps the tradable sector at every opportunity), short-sighted government policy (throw out R&D tax credits to finance tax cuts for consumers, failure to tax non-productive assets appropriately) and, worst of all, a RB governor that behaves like a lap dog to the international markets (= chronically overvalued NZD) all mean that you would have to be off your rocker to get involved with a manufacturing export business in NZ.
With all due respect Neco, and thank you for highlighting some of the recent factors in the demise of our industrial base but this has been a trend for several decades.
I think our wholesale and rapid adoption of a fully open access trade policy was a mistake and has borne little in the way of complimentary access elsewhere. Couple that with the rise of China - "the factory of the world", highly protectionist policies from our "friends" in the US and EU, tax policies that favour speculators and discourage savers and it is little wonder we find ourselves with a huge overhang of foreign debt.
A lot of our basic production is being shipped off in it's raw state. Logs should be going out as ready to use timber or paper for example, we even have a lot of the plant to do this lying idle around the country, we could triple our return from this resource. To compound the problem, a lot of our forestry resource has been flogged off to overseas interests so, apart from a few tree fellers and truck drivers wages, the returns from the forests go straight back overseas as well.
We have - collectively - a shocking record of living beyond our means and, sorry if you find this unpalatable, but this is largely a city based problem.
With all due respect Kiwidave I'm not saying that the cities with their consumption binge haven't had a negative influence on our economy but rather that I find your suggestion that we have "dropped the ball" somewhat facile. I own/operate one of those export companies that "adds value to primary production" and I can assure you that, given current economic conditions, consolidation rather than reckless expansion is the order of the day. We recently benchmarked a San Diego company operating in our sector and found at the current exchange rate they could lease quality industrial space cheaper than we can, were paying technical staff less than we are, and were paying a third less for consumables and equipment. All that before considering interest rates, proximity to market, access to skilled workers and technological capacity of our respective economies.
The core of the problem is nicely summed up here:
Investment in innovation could be another example. Key says innovation is at the heart of the "lift in economic performance" he wants. He could require all new policy to be assessed as positive or negative for innovation investment - a new box to tick for new policy alongside the fiscal and regulatory boxes.
But when Business New Zealand's Phil O'Reilly put this to him at a symposium last month Key skirted round it. Key the trader is still the face of the Government. Key the investor has yet to arrive.
Nico. Yep, I too own/operate a (small) part-export business - and I agree, costly/low yielding expansion is not my focus at present - I am just working the equipment, stock and myself harder in order to be here next year. This is not a particularly enticing way to greet each work day, but it is my reality.
Someone else mentioned that we need access to cheap money at present to expand our way out of this cycle. Anyone who is cranking up a huge loan to start/expand a business at present, had better either have rock solid forward orders or be strapping on some weighty coconuts each morning.
Your benchmarking exercise is fascinating. Pretty much everything that I use in my business is visible online in the USA and, like your findings, generally about 30-40% cheaper.
Of course it is ironic that American manufacturers often struggle to be cost competitive against imports also - really shows you what we are up against down here.
God knows what has happened to the 'knowledge economy' and innovation dream - seems to be in the too hard basket. Inexcusable.
On the nail Kiwidave. Lend to the NZ government, big question is ' are they good for it'?
Last Friday, speaking in Germany, [European Central Bank President] Jean-Claude Trichet said it best: ‘Monetary policy responsibility cannot substitute for government irresponsibility.’
Why the surprise? People have been saying for yonks that we have a savings problem, but for yonks those same people have not demonstrated any concern for NZ savers, via taxation and monetary policy.
Why the surprise? We have a monetary policy structure that allows (indeed, incentivises) private borrowing to circumvent policy execution with preferential use of 'easier' foreign funds/savings - why not public borrowing too?
Why the surprise? It's just "world best practice" free market thinking at work, why complain? What could possibly go wrong?
Why the surprise? Lenders know we run monetary policy that supports and favours, an overvalued NZD.
If the weaknesses in our monetary and prudential policy structures were corrected, so that unproductive private debt was not so great and domestic savings so poor, we'd not have the concerns referenced and raised in this article.
Why the surprise?
Cheers, Les.
Number 6 makes the point above...
"The objective, during this downturn, is for the country to borrow as cheaply as it can. If we need to use the Crown balance sheet to achieve that; then so be it.
The answer, though, is to use the funding well. That is a wholly different debate."
Old Steve Keen article "The elephant...." Still valid in Australia?
Maybe we are slyly being 'encouraged' to decouple from Australian banks...
Kiwibank rate drop...
It's a grand idea doomed for the bin Bernard. Govt has decided to borrow offshore to ensure the funds the banks chase after are as cheap as poss....to enable the property bubbles to be protected...to make sure the bank balance sheets look good...so the banks can continue to debt farm the economy long into the future....the outcome will be eventual downgrade...much higher rates...and a bloody good depression. There is no friggin way this side of 2051 that this economy will see a fiscal surplus again.
From the Hudson commentary on Europe
First, shift taxes back onto land and resource rent, and onto financial and capital gains. This will prevent another real estate bubble from being inflated by debt leveraging. By holding down housing prices, it will save labor from having to pay an equivalent amount in income tax. Low real estate taxes (under 1% until just recently) have not saved homeowners money in Latvia. Low property taxes merely have left more rental income to be pledged to banks, to capitalize into large mortgage loans.
Second, de-privatize basic utilities and natural monopolies to save Europe from rentiers turning it into a tollbooth economy. Europe needs a central bank that can do what central banks are supposed to do: create money to finance government deficits. .......
Government banking is not necessarily inflationary. It finances what is necessary for economies to grow: investment in infrastructure and capital formation to raise productivity and minimize the cost of doing business.
What turns out to be inflationary is commercial bank lending. It inflates asset prices – unproductively. Banks lend mainly against real estate and other assets already in place, and stocks and bonds already issued. This is unproductive credit, not real wealth creation. The only way to keep this unproductive debt overhead solvent is to inflate asset prices more – by untaxing assets to leave more revenue to pay bankers on exponentially growing debts.
It doesn’t have to be this way. The recent 30 years of financial polarization is reversible. The alternative is to succumb to neoliberal austerity.
Apply that here and we may get somewhere, eh?
Guess which people have the most money to invest? A society where the average time to pay off a mortgage is 7 years, or where it is 17 years?
The first is in the States of the USA that did not have a housing bubble, thanks to no regulations that forced land prices up. The latter is NZ. Buried in those statistics, is a disturbing "trend". An analysis of RECENT mortages would show "no change" in the former, and a much longer period in the latter.
Let's let people have cheap land (it is the height of absurdity that NZ manages to politically engineer urban land as expensive as Britain or Japan and more expensive than Germany), let them pay off LOW mortgages fast, and then invest their disposable income in infrastructure bonds (if they wish) or something else PRODUCTIVE. Hint: Housing Ponzi is NOT "productive".
let them pay off LOW mortgages fast, and then invest their disposable income in infrastructure bonds (if they wish) or something else PRODUCTIVE
yeah, I like this idea too - I would happily invest in a 'build a new dam, improve our railroads etc' bonds. I would never buy - 'pay this weeks WINZ bill' bonds.
I had thought a 'grow NZ' bond would be a great idea. Effectively a venture capital pool for folks to fund new or growing NZ businesses. Heaps of alternatives - Govt could match $ for $, investors incl. govt could take equity and future dividends or simple interest payments. Maybe tax incentives - a range of options to suit different investment profiles.
We already have a nationwide business banking team in the form of kiwibank - use kiwibank to administer all retail bond issues.
Because Bernard these guys have been brainwashed by the school of thought that outsourcing and selling everything for meagre savings is better than helping the country as a whole.
Now published in the NZ Herald, it looks like a massive amount of government IT is set to be outsourced, possibly overseas.
This will represent even more dumbing down of this country if large numbers of high skilled and well paying jobs are going to be paid to offshore workers rather than Kiwi's.
Now published in the NZ Herald, it looks like a massive amount of government IT is set to be outsourced, possibly overseas.
Oh god when will this nightmare end???!!!! I am so sick of seeing the Government ship skilled work offshore to save a few bucks now - yet more skilled workers will get on the plane.
Short-sighted lunacy.
I'd be surprised if they save anything, if not lose on it.
For smaller companies I think outsourcing highly specialised jobs can often make good sense.
But when you're talking about large to very large organizations I Ihink outsourcing is stupid, and just makes you held to ranson to your provider, because once you've moved it accross it's often way to expensive to take it anywhere else, or back again.
The country is doomed! We just consistently vote for the same bunch of idiots who prance around looking and sounding important but, give them a shoe lace to tie and watch them cock THAT UP!
They can't even deal with a national disaster right. Next election the same boneheads will vote for the same fellow boneheads they always do after another round of "I’m a sucker and I vote" is on the cards.
Jezz, It's easy to criticize yes, cause what else can you do with delusional types who never learn lessons EVER.
Why don't I leave many ask? We are!
How much longer are the media/ public waiting until demanding top performance from our government ?
After the ”Pike River” disaster” PM John Key should have sacked minister Brownlee straight away. There is enough evidence that the government having sufficient reasons and temporary stop and check the operation, for the safety of NZworkers – they didn’t.
What’s going on in this blog not dealing with such important economic issues ?
New Zealand would be far better off, the public/ media judging on performance of individual parliamentarians, then traditionally on party theories/ ideologies.
Considering my earlier articles (see below also and 17 Jan 11, 10:30pm above ) about “Pike River”, I find this statement below unbelievable.
18th of January 2011
Mr Brownlee says despite those stable gas readings, the atmosphere in the mine is still not safe to breathe and could change rapidly
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10700418
--
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36183425/ns/us_news-life/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/25/west-virginia-mine-investigation-methane_n_694787.html
You have rabbits too. I went out the other night and shot 50, ran out of ammo in the end. I have a couple of professional types from town who come out and shoot and they get enough for their dogs and have some fun shooting long range but I need to put some pressure on them to shoot a few more. The shoot 250 meters + with a 22-250 which is an expensive way to kill rabbits but they drive out in their very flash 4x4 and love it. Maybe I should charge them. Talked to farmer in Nth canterbury who said the rabbits were so bad that the reg council has decided to rate an extra 75k to control them. I said put an add in the nz herald. Wanted rabbit shooter, free rifles and ammo needs foxy type dogs, 4x4 ute supplied free farm cottage 50 k a year and see if the phone stops ringing. And that I guess sums up whats wrong with councils, they are out of control and think they can impose costs unrelated to income. This farmer told me he was debt free 5 years ago, did some development and made a few losses and is now nearly 2 mill in a hole. people say there are no jobs, well get 4 farmers in north Canterbury together and do a deal on rabbit control. But I think you need a OSH certificate today, full 1st aid, a poisons licence and a reg council approved pest control licence, an Osh quad certificate full liability Insurance before you can go on a farm and a management plan and a bunch of other stuff. Took a friend of mine 3 years to get through the paper work to apply to Animal health as an approved possum controller anda another 2 years till he got a contract.
I question whether they (Regulators) were the source of many of the leaks that seemed to continually unsettle the nbdt sector. Whether this was a slip of the pen, accidental click of the mouse..Who knows? If the same sloppiness was afforded to the banking crisis we could all be speaking Chinese by now?
In respect of the rbnz putting the nbdt sector into the gg scheme they had really no choice. Most finance co.s had mismatched balance sheets.( I might add nowhere near as skewed as the banks) and it is common knowledge "runs" were occurring in both sectors. It was a miracle that so many nbdt held on as long as they did (Handover included).
Without the support of the rbnz and the securitization program initially implemented and the eventual gg scheme offered to the banks, news was that they were months away from default.
My question is and still remains why was this luxury not offered to the nbdt along with the gg scheme? If it was we wouldn't have the carnage we have now.
It may seem amazing to some bloggers here but the finance sector by and large isn't really doing a hell of a lot different to the banks!
Finally I could never really understand why with a gg scheme interest rates could vary so much. I mean in essence the crown should be setting the rate in terms of its risk premium? If this had been the case investors would not have flocked to SCF and other. The loss to the Crown would have been far less.
It appears that policy here was written in 5 minutes by a pleb and passed to Bollard on the back of a napkin
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.