My perspective is that homelessness is the greatest moral and economic failure of our time and that no government has done anywhere near enough to treat the issue with the seriousness it deserves. Is that what you have an issue with?

That's why I write about policy, because I'm interested in how we can solve it. I'm not interested in language policing. The left has wasted a lot of time inventing new ways to talk kindly about homelessness while doing little to actually address it. I simply don't see the point of that.

Most importantly, I like the metaphor because it emphasizes that homelessness is *curable*. It's not a problem that we just have to live with. We can address the symptoms and the underlying causes In New Zealand, it is an absolutely solvable problem.

It also emphasizes that homelessness is not a moral failing or a lifestyle choice. It is something that afflicts people due to circumstances outside of their control.

And yes, as I mention in this piece, homelessness affects the wider economy not just the individual.

I got this idea when I spoke with Dr Sam Tsemberis, who developed the Housing First model. He referred to homelessness as "a disease of prosperity" – because it is worse in Tier 1 cities with expensive housing markets.

It's unlikely to even be debated. There are 74 bills in the tin at the moment. The odds of the fireworks bill being drawn before the next election are low.

I am! I was a huge fan for years, long before I worked here.

good luck with that!

Yeah that's fair, I've made a small tweak to reflect that @graemeedgeler.bsky.social

I was already working on the story but your skeet thread was very helpful.

Thanks Stephen, I've tweaked the first graph with a text note. For the record, here's what the colours mean:

Light Blue: Internal migration
Dark Blue: International migration
Purple: Natural changes