intern

Oh, hey, being as it is that I have pretty much chucked in the bicycles for moto bikes, is anyone here interested in a lightly used Specialized S-Works Epic, 2018 model, done around 2000km? It's carbon black with yellow decals. PM me if interested.

And even more so, most voters will vote for the nicest looking candidate, too, rather than the most competent! Fortunately, though, it is us old boring quiet people who are most often encountered at the ballot box, with the noisy social media types too deep in Twitter and the couch to translate their loud mouths into votes!

This is exactly the problem. As Winston Churchill actually never really said, the best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. Most voters do not look past the slogans and the headlines, which means they are easily won over by a slick PR campaign (WP please don't imagine me saying this about you because I am not...you clearly take a lot more interest than the average voter does, or you would not have raised the topic).

Or, as David Seymour summed up in his speech at the ACT conference, 'the Labour Party has excelled as a PR operation'!

SRAM gripshit don't break. That's all I have to say about that! When my Mrs pranged years ago while training for the Epic she got an XTR lever in her thumb. That sealed the switch for her...

I differ on that somewhat WP. Kindness is all well and good, but when kindness is powered by other people's money, it is a political tool rather than a genuine sentiment. Look at the paycut debacle for sincerity. How much would it take to simply pay back 20% of your salary to IRD, or to a charity? No effort at all. It's like the millionaires and their headlines of 'tax us more'. Mate, you want to pay more tax, lead by example. No revenue department in the world will turn down voluntarily contributed funds. But somehow, law is required to compel these do-gooders to do good. Long after the headline has faded from memory. Kindness, yes, but where's kindness when your policies have unexpected and deleterious outcomes? Child poverty (itself a debatable issue in NZ - children need love, not money, and there is a poverty of good parenting in some societal circles) is up, homelessness is up, people on benefits, up, waitlists for surgery etc, up. All the kindness in the world solves not these issues. And, in fact, as Thomas Sowell makes abundantly clear in 'Wealth, Poverty and Politics', kindness can and does, in a very real sense, kill. Too much kindness results in excruciatingly poor outcomes for, well, poor folk. Sometimes the best way to help people is to give them less help, not more. And 'feel good' policies sold on intentions are often dangerous, because their long run consequences are not considered nor evaluated. You'll see a lot of talk of expectations and intentions, but if and when you see measurements and evaluation of outcomes being dropped, or when you see policy effects measured in dollars spent rather than outcomes achieved, it's time to question the value of kindness (itself an abstract concept without any firm measure).

Judith Collins coming into National, with Big Gerry as her deputy, is the best thing to happen to National for some time, although the circumstances were pretty dire this time yesterday morning. Muller never was political leadership material; prior to deposing Simon Bridges, Muller was entirely - entirely - invisible. I live in the Bay of Plenty and had never heard of him before, even as a political tragic. And when he folded over the MAGA hat souvenir, the writing was on the wall, shortly followed by the 'why aren't you brown enough' debacle, and then the photo in front of an upside down Rangatiritanga flag. Sloppy, bewildered and just never going to connect with the electorate. BTW, I liked the pairing of Bridges with Bennett; they were both Maori, but not Maori enough (whatever TF that means, but ja). Both Brownlee and Collins have extensive experience as senior Ministers, with Collins previously holding the Police and Justice portfolios, among others, and Big G having led the Christchurch recovery, so he knows how to manage a crisis (and oh boy do we have one of those right now). Collins has a great combination of mongrel, political instinct, and the ability to handle an often hostile media. Same for Gerry; he knows the House rules better than anyone, including current Speaker Trevor Mallard (or maybe Nick Smith...Nick knows the rules very well, but is in constant strife with Mallard simply because Mallard doesn't like Smith). This is as winning a leadership as National will have in the foreseeable future. On Labour; while Jacinda has handled the various crises very well, her team has not. In fact, if you look closely at Labour and the Greens, they are shot through with incompetence and scandal, with only Jacinda and her kindness shining through. Now, kindness is all well and good, but once the hugs are gone, it's the hard decisions that remain. She's proven spectacularly unwilling or unable to make hard decisions, starting with Meka Whaitiri, extending to Clare Curran and Iain Lees-Galloway and right through to David Clark. You could throw Phil Twyford in there too, a man who has spectacularly failed in every portfolio he has been given, yet remains #4 on the Labour list. And what of Labour deputy Kelvin Davis, also Minister of Tourism - completely clueless and largely invisible, because every time he does a press standup, he comes away mauled and clearly lacks understanding of his portfolio. Grant Robertson, Finance Minister, has arguably done a pretty good job, though. The Greens...oh where to begin. Hard core socialists who have missed the boat completely on what should be their core area of change or action, the environment. It's all been Ilhumatao and benefits, no Kermadecs sanctuary (proposed by National, vetoed by NZ First), no cameras on fishing boats (proposed by National, vetoed by NZ First). And NZ First? They say never write Winston off, but he's mired in controversy (as always - right the way back to 1978, the Scampi affair,the Wine Box Enquiry, and now the shenanigans in the Racing portfolio, the PGF, the NZ First Foundation and dodgy donors including from the fishing industry, and, and and). This election should see NZF and hopefully the Greens out of Parliament and good riddance too. ACT...why do I vote ACT? Because ACT is principled, has offered firm and sensible resistance to erosions of fundamental rights including freedom of speech, and more than any other party, stresses the principles of self-reliance, small government and minimal state intrusion on personal lives. Note that ACT, the smallest party in Parliament, has achieved well beyond its physical stature: Charter Schools, 3 strikes and the End of Life Choice (euthanasia) legislation is all ACT's work. Seymour also tried to introduce legislation to compel MPs to take a pay cut after Jacinda grabbed headlines saying she would take a 20% salary reduction. She made that claim around 6 months ago, hasn't yet taken a pay cut, and her Labour party voted down Seymour's bill. Now, politics is the art of compromise. No party will fully align with your views or your principles. Our choice is to understand what each party wants and then see which aligns best with your views and principles, then cast your vote accordingly. There is also no right or wrong vote. If you believe in Labour principles or what the Green Party is doing, I will not hold that against you and nor can I criticise it. Sure, though, I will discuss why I see things differently...and I commit to trying to understand those different views, rather than dismissing or being hostile to them. We can all learn something from anyone else, and the fact that we all see things differently is valuable rather than divisive or problematic.

Holy moly Patham that is a serious prang. Chipped teeth says it all, never mind the vertebrae etc. All the best for the recovery...bit of a long and not lekker road ahead.

Depends on their age, I guess. My kids are born Kiwis, my 7 year old tells me he is a New Zealander and I am a South African. Bloody xenophobe!!

Speaking of dirt bikes...these kids will grow up to be the next Jarvis, Haaker or Birch ;-)

Told ya you should come on down to Whakatown. Lekker in the wop wops.

On the money. My Mrs worries about the kids from dodgy backgrounds, and it is a matter for concern as we have a number who you can see are and will be bad influences (arrive late, are antisocial/unpleasant/aggressive). But that's life, too, you get all kinds of people and have to get used to dealing with the good and bad.

There is nothing wrong with wanting the best for your kids, and it is your prerogative to make those decisions as you see fit!

My take on this is that education is primarily a parent's responsibility and a partnership with teachers. I'm not too worried about fancy schools or decile ratings (that may change as the lads get older) but for now, in primary school, I'm very happy with the local school (Apanui) and don't even know what it's decile is. And my focus for their education is primarily the three Rs (reading, riting and rithmatic), with introductions to history, chemistry, geography and English literature which draw on and enhance the application of those three Rs. I know a number of young adults who have gone through the local high school and who are from good solid families, and who have grown into responsible, productive members of society holding down great jobs after graduating Uni. That, to me, is a good sign that you don't have to ship Sonny Jim off to boarding school in Palmy or the Naki for him to achieve great outcomes. But as I say, these are moving targets!

Didn't you see the pre-election debates between Bill English and Jacinda Ardern? Jacinda claimed she never lies and it's possible to be in politics without telling lies. That's such an obvious lie it's almost comical in its naivete. All of us lie, one way or another, and politicians by the very nature of their 'business' are compelled to lie here, there and everywhere. We've seen plenty of evidence of Cindy telling porkies...this one is likely another example...

He should have been fired when he flouted the very regulations he signed off on right at the start of lockdown. That was a precursor of the incompetence to come. But Jacinda doesn't know how to fire...and the appointment of Chippie just shows how shallow the Labour talent pool is. Chippie has WAY too much on his plate as it is; in addition to Education, he's Leader of the House, and Minister of State Services. That's 3 BEEG portfolios...and Health, in the present climate, has never been BEEEGER.

Chorus doesn't have any direct relationship with the customer, they serve the retailers - which is your ISP. That's why installs, even if pretty good, are still sometimes a nightmare, owing to the structure of the market.

I wonder where you might find 200 bucks ;-)

Yep. Put another way, wealth is what is left over after the living daylights was taxed on income.

Before talking 'taxes for the wealthy', it is crucial to examine what 'the wealthy' means. In the mind of the socialist, 'the wealthy' got that way by exploiting the poor or being a leech on society ('taking more than they should/being greedy'). But look a bit closer. For the vast majority of 'the wealthy' (in parenthesis because the definition is fluid...when I was in my early 20s, someone earning R2000 was rich), they got that way by adding value to society. The more value they add, the more people are willing to hand over their money. Think about, say, Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos. People aren't lining up willingly to give them cash out of exploitation, they are doing so because Billy or Jeffy make their lives easier or better through the products and services they provide. Willing buyer, willing seller, no coercion here. Seen this way, the wealthy aren't exploiting society, but instead are making society better through the goods and services provided, upon which indeed we all depend for our way of life. Kick the wealthy out like Idi Amin did with the Indians in Uganda, and what do you have? Redistribution of wealth to the less fortunate? Not really. You have shortages, inefficiency, high prices, privation. Targeting the productive members of society in the interests of 'fairness' (fair to whom?) and 'equality' aren't new ideas. But efforts to solve these 'problems' have depressingly consistent outcomes. That incorrigible racist Winston Churchill probably said it best: "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." And of course, as Margaret Thatcher famously said in Parliament years ago, socialists "Would rather that the poor were poorer, provided that the rich were less rich. ... ... Yes, he would rather have the poor poorer, provided that the rich were less rich."

Disastrous socialism which will encourage indolence and reduce productivity while driving 'the wealthy' away and providing ample work for tax accountants and trust lawyers. The Greens have always been hard socialists first and an environmental party a distant second. This was highly apparent in the Metiria Turei era (though Russel 'give me my flag back' Norman is at least a real environmentalist), and even more so in the Davidson/Shaw era. Oh, and for anyone who says 'yes I think it is a good idea to pay more tax, I am willing to do my part'? You are always welcome to pay the IRD more than it asks of you, so go ahead and lead by example, rather than legislating to force everyone to do what you won't do yourself without coercion.

And, of course, if you look beyond the well handled crises (well handled, it must be qualified, mostly from a PR point of view), the bigger picture isn't pretty. As Duncan Garner made clear yesterday: https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/06/duncan-garner-jacinda-ardern-s-big-promises-have-failed-spectacularly.html We've seen the polls from Colmar Brunton yesterday, too. Labour still riding high but shed 9% to National. Muller has yet to really make a mark and is still VERY nervous in Question Time in Parliament. He is making the right sort of noises, though, so hopefully he will come good well before September (though I have my doubts). AWESOME to see that quisling Winston Peters and NZ First down to 2 percent and out of parliament, unless Shane Jones can win Northland (despite all the PGF bribery, this is highly unlikely - the onanist Jones has never won an electorate in his lengthy career. Onanist because he was infamously bust putting adult movies on his government credit card!) Similarly awesome seeing the spineless Greens losing support; them being out of Parliament will be a fine day indeed. Spineless? They have resisted putting cameras on fishing boats (National policy), beholden to NZ First, which is paid off by the fishing industry. They also went with NZ First and Labour in scuppering the Kermadecs sanctuary. And after protesting against the Chinese buying NZ water for export, went along with the sale of Otakiri Springs...to the Chinese (I have no problem with this, it's just that it shows the poor environmental record of the Greens). Best of all, ACT up to 3%. I think they could parlay that into 5% or more come 19 September. Gonna be a humdinger of an election, that's for sure. Very exciting!

Don't even get me started on Health Minister Dr. David Clark. Please note: he has a PhD in Theology, not a MD. Doesn't appear he learned much about honesty, integrity and ethics while studying theology, though.

Those who follow politics know Jacinda achieved absolutely nothing in Opposition. The single Bill she tabled wasn't even a Bill - it was an idea for a Bill and therefore didn't even pass first reading. Great at announcements. Not great at doing the mahi (ha ha look how PC NZ I am) or carrying the can when it inevitably goes pear shaped. Notice how she's vanished from the Jacy and Ashy show now the news is adverse.

PS told you that would work here