Richards Comments:

I MENTIONED last week that I’d approach the Treasury minister to see whether there was an update available on this matter of growth and where we are year to date and even spoke to his ‘Docteur de Rotation’ so anxious was I to get the update.

Happily, it is on its way although I have no idea what ground it will cover, especially coming so soon before the imminent Budget report.

However, it would be useful if it clarifies some of the confusion about growth, rampant growth demanded by the business community and the blessed nirvana sought by some of no growth at all.
I didn’t hear the phone-in yesterday — no offence to my colleagues in arms at the Beeb but with weather like Sunday’s… — so I have no idea what Derek Coates said.

However, why the business community has been so bewildered by the no (population) growth policy is because it leaves them not on a level playing field. Let me explain.

The Policy Council and, indeed, government itself, has happily been ticking along with around with a net population growth of 200 a year. It’s been driven by immigration and it has seen the number of folk here rise to an estimated (by the Policy Council) 61,029 at the end of last year and is probably heading to the 61,300 mark now.
As far as I am aware, business was clear that the ‘grow the economy’ challenge post zero-10 did not mean additional population growth but required the status quo.

The debate last April changed that to a no growth policy as, as the PC’s own reports indicated, not allowing the population to rise by around 200 a year means that it will actually start to fall, the number in work supporting the retired oldsters would dwindle and, basically, we’re all going to hell in a handcart.
It’s good when it’s joined up, eh?

PS: I put this together last evening before the overnight posts but those notwithstanding, economic strategies go hand in glove with population.