Divergence, it has been a long time since I've heard the term 'business elite' used in modern commentary. The last time was the early 70s in a now long faded sociology text.

What is curious is that you defend anonymous political parties who have no track record or form on economics yet they want to meddle in Australia's social, economic and immigration policies. They've got no track record on publishing articles or journals on population either.

Quoting from their website is pointless as it changes from day to day, depending on which way the wind blows or who is attacking them. Half of their reason for existing - the baby bonus - has disappeared. Kanck has gone on record calling for a one child policy (which she quickly retracted), Mark O'Connor called for world population to shirk to 2 billion and Tim Flannery reckons Australia's pop should shrink to 16 million. Absolute shocker - and these people want us to elect them a Senator. They need to find their moral compass first.

The sociobiological foundations of the SPP can be found here:

http://newmatilda.com/2013/06/07/stop-breeding-nations-sake

Cheryl,

You falsely accused SPGN and SPP of advocating certain policies. Now you are saying that they may not have them now, but had them in the past. If this is true, then you can easily go to the Wayback Machine and find past iterations of their websites to prove your case. If you can't, perhaps you will admit that you made it all up. It is easy enough to find an individual who has any views that you like, but that is different from attributing them to a whole organization without evidence.

I have already given one example of an economically successful country with no population growth. How many more examples do you need? There are demographers who agree with us about population growth, such as Bob Birrell, and even some major party politicians, such as Kelvin Thomson and Nick Minchin. Others have ties to the property development industry

http://www.stoppopulationgrowthnow.com/LardelliEssay.html

http://www.democracy4sale.org/

Hardly wise philosopher kings.

"One wonders what young people think of this obstructionism. Affordable accommodation close to the city is hard to come by."

It's a mistake to think that younger people all think the same way and that we all want the same things.

I have no desire for unit living, I gave that a good try but I felt like a battery hen. Nearly everyone I know still lives at home, lives in the suburbs in share housing or if they can afford it and have a family, a town house or house with a backyard.

I've only seen property prices rise since our population has grown over the past decade and so has the cost of living.

I don't think demographics can be separated from environmentalism because there's no doubt that a population that grows quickly will soon find itself outgrowing the environment they depend on to survive.

Another issue is how long it takes to get to town these days. Living in the outer suburbs wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for greater congestion on our roads. As the suburbs creep further away and the units keep getting built near town I can't see things will get better, only worse. If I wanted to live somewhere with a bigger population I'd move to Melbourne or Sydney. I think Adelaide is pretty great as it is.

I'm sorry people aren't prouder or more content with what we have because a lot of overcrowded cities have major problems.

I think you might be being a little harsh on the poor old dears Malcolm. All you have to do is Google “Sustainability and Social Justice” to see just how many entities try to get some leverage from this mantra.

A bit of Club of Rome, Agenda 21 and their sustainability, a bit of social justice, social license, all mixed together with a hefty dollop of Peak Everything and bingo, you’re in the mainstream of activism.

As a change manager you will be well aware of how the process works, why pick on them?

We could, with just a few strokes on a keyboard, introduce quantitative easing, and or virtually doubling our money supply.
In the first instance, this would make housing even less affordable.
Along with increasing property prices, would come higher council rates, higher house and contents insurance premiums, higher maintenance costs, higher mortgage costs, higher replacement costs/service fees and higher charges for everything we import, fuel, food!
And the myopically focused, moronic, moribund property owning baby boomers, will think, oh goody, my investment property has virtually doubled in value, along with the future rents I'll be able to charge!?
Justifiable in the face of all those other rising costs, including replacement or repair costs.
And think, some of those heritage listed buildings, (termite riddled ruins) they have often become so enamoured with, would likely cost much more to repair/rejuvenate, than to simply tear down and replace with something brand new.
A miner's cottage in a Sydney inner suburb could cost you more than a million, and probably that much again to fully refurbish?
[Little wonder Sydney now rates as the most expensive place to live, in the English speaking would!]
Whereas, for around the same outlay, one could build six brand new, steel framed homes, with fifty year structural guarantees on six separate acres, near, (but not too close to) a stinger free beach, here in sunny Queensland.
When Adelaide's baby boomers are trying to block every nook and cranny against those chilly winter winds, and hugging the increasingly expensive heater, I'll be "walking" the dog, (mobility scooter) on a sunny warm sandy beach.
And when they're sweltering in yet another record heat wave, I'll be wetting a line or taking a dip in the still affordable, (for now) backyard pool!
There's work for Young people who want it, up here.
All we need is to exchange all our greying greenies, (road blocks in the path of progress) for some of SA's upwardly mobile and progressive youngsters.
Perhaps we could reintroduce punitive death duties/inheritance tax, to start an exodus, back down to Southern states?
Rhrosty.

I’ll tell you a short story in two posts which is typical of what is happening with developments in Australia’s major cities. It’s a curious dynamic involving the ageing Boomers in specific localities, intergenerational tension and how the anti-population parties support division for electoral gain.

Betty is 64, a retired schoolteacher who lives in a ‘nice’ leafy suburb called ‘Boomer Grove’ in a capital city. Her husband Bob has retired and they have plenty of time on their hands to do the things they enjoy. They own their own house, and will never need to worry about money.

Betty has noticed that an old mansion down the road has been sold to a developer who is going to build ten apartments on the land. The old mansion was falling down, had no heritage value and had been inhabited by drug addicts and never do wells. The development had been approved by Council.

But Betty had reservations. A lot more people now lived in Boomer Grove since she was a girl in the late 1940s. There were a lot more foreigners too. Betty mentioned the new development to her friends at Save Our World (SOW), a group dedicated to ensuring that the local community (meaning them) were consulted on all property developments.

Across town, Tina and Paul, both in their 20s, have spent the last five years scraping together the deposit for an apartment near the city. They knew about the Boomer Grove development and were going to buy an apartment off the plan. Leafy Grove was expensive but it was perfect as it was close to the city for work. Plus Tina was expecting their first child.

(more next post)