Luke Malpass writes:

Despite the rhetoric around savings, what the Government has largely done is cut in some areas to fund increases in others. If successful strategies are about aligning resources to priorities, that may be defensible. But it is not “savings” in any absolute or net sense — it is simply different spending decisions.

There have been no net savings to the Budget’s bottom line since this Government took office. Spending has increased. Willis defends this on the basis that the Government does not want to cut essential services.

Her explanation was: “It is not a saving in the sense that we are spending less as a government; it is a saving in the sense that, in the absence of making those savings, we would not have been able to fund increases to health and education and essential services without borrowing more.”

This is a good analysis. The Government has done a good job in redirecting spending from wasteful areas to frontline services. This should be applauded, and not something that Labour would have done.

However overall spending has remained too high. Labour blew it out from 28% of GDP to 34% and it is still way above the 30% that Labour and Greens promised as a cap in 2017. The Government must commit to getting it back under 30% – soon rather than later.

A guest post by Chris Scott:

 New Zealand’s problem is not simply that government gets things wrong. It is that government often has no reliable way to understand how one decision interacts with another across the whole system. 

That is why the same pressures keep returning in different forms. Housing affects labour. Labour affects immigration. Immigration affects infrastructure and public services. Education affects productivity. Productivity affects wages, retention, and living standards. Each agency sees a portion of the picture, but the state as a whole struggles to see how the parts combine. 

That is an architectural problem. 

Modern government is full of expertise, data, and policy capability. What it lacks is an integrated way to model itself, test changes, and learn across domains rather than inside silos. Ministries produce competent analysis within their own boundaries, but many of the country’s biggest problems are created by interaction between boundaries. 

So the real opportunity is not just better policy within the existing framework. It is to build a system that allows government to simulate itself, evaluate structural changes before rolling them out, and improve its own understanding over time. 

That does not mean replacing politics with software. It means building a simulation that runs alongside government: a living model of the state, continuously updated by real-world feedback, that helps policymakers test reforms, identify trade-offs, and spot unintended consequences before they harden into failure. 

This is where artificial intelligence has a real role. 

AI should not be asked to govern. It cannot supply legitimacy, judgement, or democratic consent. But it can help government do something it currently does badly: connect scattered information, detect patterns across domains, compare scenarios quickly, and keep an evolving model up to date as new information comes in. 

In that sense, AI becomes part of the state’s reflective capacity. It helps government see itself more clearly. 

That matters because the challenge is now too complex for siloed human interpretation alone, but far too important to hand over to automated decision-making. The right model is hybrid intelligence: AI-assisted modelling and simulation, combined with human judgement, democratic oversight, and real-world correction. 

This also helps clarify the top-down and bottom-up question. 

The architecture is necessarily top-down in one sense: a government-wide model has to integrate the whole system. It has to trace how pressure in one area produces effects in another. Without that, the state remains trapped in departmental fragments. 

But a good top-down model should not smother feedback from below. It should make that feedback more meaningful. It should help local knowledge, citizen experience, and domain expertise travel upward into a wider structure that can actually use them. 

So the aim is not bureaucracy tightening its grip. It is the opposite. It is a governing system that becomes more coherent from above while remaining corrigible from below. 

A side-by-side simulation could do exactly that. It could link housing, labour, migration, education, infrastructure, fiscal settings, and health capacity into one evolving model. AI tools could assist by integrating data, surfacing hidden pressures, and stress-testing possible changes. Human decision-makers would still interpret the outputs, weigh trade-offs, and decide what is politically and socially acceptable. 

That would not eliminate politics. It would make politics better informed. 

Singapore offers one useful analogy. Its digital-twin work shows the value of joining up planning, infrastructure, land use, and population data rather than leaving them scattered across separate systems. It is not a full model of government, but it points toward tighter coordination and better system visibility. 

The Human Genome Project offers another. It did not cure disease by itself. What it did was make an immensely complex system legible at a new level. After that, specialists could understand their own work as part of a larger architecture. Government needs something similar: not a genome of biology, but a map of its own interacting structure. 

New Zealand is unusually well placed to attempt this. We are small enough for the machinery of government to be tractable, but complex enough for the gains to be real. Our main problems are not mysterious. They are structural. What we lack is not intelligence in the abstract, but a way of organising intelligence across the whole system. 

A government simulation supported by AI would not solve every problem automatically. But it would allow the state to test itself, refine itself, and learn in a more disciplined way. It would also strengthen democracy by giving citizens, officials, and ministers a clearer view of the system they are actually operating inside. 

New Zealand does not need an automated state. It needs a state that can observe itself, model itself, and adapt. AI should be part of that architecture, not as a substitute for human government, but as a tool that helps human government become more intelligent. 

Radio NZ reports:

The ACT Party leader David Seymour has floated dishing out $500 to every year 11 student for an investment account, to promote investing at a younger age.

It was not an ACT policy “yet”, he said.

Seymour said the idea could be funded by taking about five percent, or $30 million, of the $600 million annual KiwiSaver subsidy – the government’s $260 contribution to people’s KiwiSaver accounts.

“I think most people would say that’s a bargain,” he said.

“For a relatively modest amount of money, we could give a generation a practical introduction to saving, investing, ownership, and financial responsibility.”

Using actual money, rather than a simulator, means students have “skin in the game” and would be more motivated, Seymour said.

I think this is a great idea. I already chat to my kids about the benefits of saving, and even give them an incentive that if they have any chore money unspent at the end of the month, I will match them dollar for dollar if they save it rather than spend it.

Both parties in the US have at times gerrymandered their electoral maps to favour themselves, as boundaries have to be redrawn every 10 years after a census.

Last year the GOP, pressed by Trump, did a gerrymander in Texas, adding four likely seats to the GOP, to try and protect them in the mid terms. There was no requirement to do new boundaries. They just did it because they could.

But the Democrats learned that you fight fire with fire. Rather than be idiots and just complain about it, they said well if you do it, we will also.

Texas, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio did new maps that moved nine seats to the GOP. But California, Utah and Virginia have moved 10 seats to the Democrats, which is a net loss of one for the GOP.

I’m very grateful in New Zealand the Representation Commission sets the boundaries, not MPs. While there are two political appointments on the Representation Commission, the majority are neutral officials. It is chaired by a former judge and members are the Surveyor-General, the Government Statistician and the Chief Electoral Officer.

Audrey Young writes:

There is one verdict that stands out among others, however, his scathing assessment of Dame Jacinda Ardern.

He even weaponises her self-deprecating admission that she suffered from “imposter syndrome” against her. 

“She talked a number of occasions about an imposter syndrome, and I think she genuinely felt that because I thought she was an imposter in the job,” he tells the Herald.

He says he really liked her in the beginning and welcomed the idea of a young liberal, woman Prime Minister, but his view changed quickly.

“She didn’t have the depth to be the Prime Minister of the country and was to me, more than any other Prime Minister, the biggest manipulator of the media.”

Barry Soper has covered 12 Prime Ministers, so his views are interesting – whether or not you agree with them.

Soper rates Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark highest of those he calls the “significant Prime Ministers”

The fact he rates Clark the best and Ardern the worst would suggest his assessmentment of Ardern is not related to the fact she is Labour, or that she is a woman.

On 7 May, there will be elections in Scotland, Wales and much of England. Up will be:

• 5,066 councillors on 136 English councils
• Six directly elected Mayors

The latest poll projections have Labour losing around 1,700 of their 2,200 councillors with the gains being Reform +1,450, Greens +900, Lib Dems +330. Losing 80% of your seats is terrible.

In the Welsh Senedd, Labour have 30 seats of the 60 seats. Current polls have them dropping to 12 behind Reform on 37 and Plaid Cymru on 36 (increase in seats to 96).

In the Scottish Parliament they are running in third place behind the SNP and Reform.

This may lead to an unusual situation where the Parliaments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will all be led by parties that wish to secede from the United Kingdom.

The Herald reports:

The Government has signed a “letter of intent” with Z Energy to procure 90 million litres of diesel, which is the equivalent of an additional nine days’ supply. 

The fuel will be delivered to Marsden Point, either as a single cargo or two cargoes. It will be stored here in a refurbished tank, which is expected to be available for use from early June.

This is a very important, even vital, thing to do. We currently have sufficient supply into NZ. But when or if that diminishes, what will be vital is how many days storage we have in NZ.

There is no point in reducing demand if we don’t have the storage capacity. Doing one without the other, will just mean we start turning tankers away as there is no storage for them.

Henry Cooke points out:

At this point in 2023, National had launched its income tax policy, its FamilyBoost childcare policy, its renewable electricity generation policy, its policy on interest deductibility for rentals, its brightline test policy, some of its Overseas Investment Act plans, its boot camp and gang patch policies, its youth welfare policies, its “Local Water Done Well” repeal of Three Waters, and a whole bevy of other promised reversals or initiatives.

At this point in 2017, Labour had announced KiwiBuild, its Healthy Homes policy for tenancies, its intended expansion of the Reserve Bank’s mandate, its Tax Working Group to look at capital gains taxes (CGT), a Centre of Digital Excellence in Dunedin, and a whole bunch of other reversals and initiatives, all under the leadership of Andrew Little.

This is in contrast to Chris Hipkins who has announced close to nothing.

Such a narrow policy platform makes it easy for opponents to intimate that there must be something far scarier hidden up your sleeve – or in the platforms of your potential coalition partners. It forces your MPs into media appearances where they can only talk of the problems with their opponents and never about the positive ways they want to change New Zealand. And it can simply make you look unserious and uninterested in the challenges the country has, like a restorationist project for New Zealand in 2023, rather than a team trying to take things forward.

Unserious is a good term.

The Herald reported:

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon held crisis talks with Foreign Minister Winston Peters in the Beehive last night after Peters’ office released emails to the Herald showing Luxon wanted to shift the Government’s position to show “explicit public support” for the US-led war in Iran days after it broke out.

Luxon was talked out of this position by Peters and staff in Peters’ office, the emails show.

Responding to the emails before the crisis meeting, a spokesman for Peters said Luxon’s support for the war was “imprudent” and would have “run counter to New Zealand’s national interests”.

“Experience matters in foreign policy,” he said.

The Herald contacted Luxon’s office for their response to the story. A spokesman for Luxon responded on Wednesday night, after the meeting, saying the emails “mischaracterise the PM’s position”.

“As you’d expect, it is the PM’s job to always challenge the advice he receives and, in this case, he sought to test New Zealand’s position against that of Canada and Australia.

“The public statements made by the Government reflect the PM’s position. If they didn’t, they would not have been made,” they said.

The normal aspect to this is a Prime Minister gets feedback on a draft position, and the final position varies after receiving the advice. This is a good thing.

The Labour/left Prime Ministers of Australia, Canada and UK all took more supportive stances towards the initial (not later) US strikes on Iran. It would be no surprise that the PM would say, should our stance not be the same. MFAT and the MFA said no, and their advice was taken. That is all normal.

What is abnormal is the release of these e-mails under the OIA, and how they were done. The OIA states information should not be released that could prejudice the international relations of NZ. Additionally it can be withheld under protecting collective and individual ministerial responsibility, the confidentiality of advice tendered by Ministers of the Crown and officials; or free and frank expression of opinions by or between or to Ministers of the Crown. I’d say it is 99.99% likely the Ombudsman would rule those e-mails do not have to be released under the OIA.

Further more Peters’ office unilaterally released these, not in consultation with the other Minister involved (the PM). This was a gross breach of policy and procedure. It was clearly deliberate, and designed to make the Prime Minister look bad.

What Peters did is very abnormal. There seem to be only two reasonable explanations.

1. He is peeved off that Luxon and Willis hit back at him, after he needlessly started commenting on the National Party leadership. So he did it in a fit of pique. It is just tit for tat.
2. He is setting things up, so he can backtrack on his promise not to go with Labour.

I don’t know which it is.

The Herald reports:

The Speaker has stepped into a stand-off between the National Party and TVNZ over the way two of its journalists – including political editor Maiki Sherman – tried to interview National whip Stuart Smith in a Parliament corridor late on Tuesday night last week.

Sherman and at least one other colleague could face a temporary ban from covering politics at Parliament if the Speaker has found TVNZ breached longstanding press gallery rules.

“The matters relating to gallery behaviour and that of the TVNZ political editor last week are being considered in a process long agreed by the gallery,” Speaker Gerry Brownlee said in a statement provided to Media Insider today.

He said he would “not be making any further comment at this point”.

The key document here are the rules on Interviewing MPs. Rule 18 says:

Members of the Press Gallery must not pursue members, staff, or users of Parliament who decline to be interviewed.

Pretty clear. You can question them and film them in the public area (the tiles) outside the House. But you are not allowed to follow them from there. On the basis of what has been reported, the TVNZ staff clearly broke that rule.

Interviewing, filming or photographing a member in the corridor outside the member’s office is permitted only if the member agrees.

Also very clear.

If the reports are accurate of what TVNZ did, there seems no doubt that they have broken the rules (which are long standing). The only real issue is what the sanction will be.

UPDATE: The Herald has reported a five day suspension for Sherman.

Interesting profile on Banks Peninsula MP Vanessa Weenink. Her background includes:

• Saw her dad arrested when she was 5 years old
• Almost died at 8 from osteomyelitis
• Her dad died when she was 19
• Went to medical school
• Enlisted in NZ Army and served for 22 years
• Two deployments to Afghanistan and one to East Timor
• Did a 22 hour shift as a triage team leader during the Christchurch earthquake
• Shifted parties from Labour to National as she realised people should have independence, autonomy of thought, and reward for achievement.
• Was Chair of the GP Council of the NZ Medical Assn

Those on the hard left think National MPs all come from privileged backgrounds. The reality is quite different.

The Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal by Brenton Tarrant as “utterly devoid of merit”. The weasel realised he was going to lose, so tried to drop the appeal, but the court refused, and have usefully put on the record his appeal was hopeless – effectively meaning he can’t have another try later on.

Now we can forget all about him, knowing he will never ever be released.

Simon Court’s Facebook post about the parliamentary declaration condemning antisemitism recently created an avalanche of antisemitic posts in the comments with the most vile content imaginable. These screenshots could have come straight out of Nazi Germany:

And that’s just a few of the hundreds of vile comments on there. But as to the titular post, I reported Rayray King for hate speech for saying “Fuck the jews”:

A week later Facebook replied saying this was not a violation of their Community Standards. Personally, I think it says everything about the worldview of the people who own Facebook that “fuck the Jews” is not hate speech.

I thought it was pretty bad a few years ago when I reported someone posting a picture of a spade with ashes on it and a caption “how to pick up Jewish chicks” and this was held not to violate the rules, but thought perhaps AI moderation found it difficult to pick up on what was being said. But Facebook’s Community Standards explicitly list posts saying “Fuck the —” (where — is a protected characteristic) as an example of hate speech, and says that ethnicity (and for that matter religion) is a protected characteristic. That’s not hard even for AI moderation to understand.

Hypocrites.

Radio NZ reports:

The Greens are defending their candidate for Māngere, saying now he has been selected he will be expected to meet different standards of behaviour.

Michel Mulipola was recently confirmed as the Green Party candidate for the South Auckland seat of Māngere.

Social media posts have surfaced showing him ripping up the New Zealand flag, calling police ‘pigs’, and a member of the coalition government as a “piece of s***”. …

ACT Party leader David Seymour said the Green co-leaders defending Mulipola were encouraging a path towards political violence.

The position of the Green Party is they are fine with a candidate cheering on political assassinations of right wingers and thinking the Police are c**ts, as long as he longer says so publicly!

Do you think he will be made Minister for Police or Minister of Justice if the Greens are in Government?

The NZ Herald reports:

TVNZ threatened to sue Newstalk ZB after a producer raised questions with the state broadcaster about an incident in which its political editor, Maiki Sherman, allegedly used a homophobic slur, ZB host Mike Hosking says.

Hosking told listeners today that his producer, Sam Carran, had been investigating the alleged incident – in which Sherman allegedly directed the word “f****t” at journalist Lloyd Burr during an event in Finance Minister Nicola Willis’ office – in the latter part of 2025. 

“We got to a point where we were going to say something about it,” Hosking said.

But when Carran went to TVNZ to seek a response, the state broadcaster came back to him saying it did not comment on employment matters – followed soon after by a legal letter from a corporate law firm, understood to be Russell McVeagh. 

“TVNZ threatened to sue us,” Hosking told listeners.

I’m not sure who looks worse in this.

First you have TVNZ threatening another media company with defamation, in relation to a story that appears to be 100% factually accurate (in that no one since Ani O’Brien published has said it is wrong). So the state owned broadcaster is using legal threats to squash an accurate story that one of their staff behaved badly.

But you also have NZME that got the legal threat, and decided to then sit on its hands. Once upon a time, a defamation threat would make a media outlet even more determined to publish. Would they have backed down to a non-media company acting the same?

And people wonder why there is low trust in media. This is why.

Andrew Sullivan quotes a pithy summary of what Trump has said he wants:

Unconditional surrender. Regime change. Partnership with regime for tariffing the strait. Close the strait. Open the strait. No nukes. Some nukes. No missiles. Some missiles. Civilization wipeout. Ceasefire. War. Peace. And if all that fails, we’ll take the JCPOA.

This isn’t 4d chess. At best it is snakes and ladders.

Sullivan notes:

This is the art of the deal? Please. Day-by-day contradictions, countless red lines crossed and crossed again, weird declarations of total victory, followed by even weirder threats to blow everything up again: at some point, even Goebbels would give up. Five deadlines have been set and five deadlines have passed without Iran capitulating.

Trump appears to be getting outsmarted by a supreme leader who may be in a coma!

The Southern Poverty Law Centre used to be a great institution. It used to be a major foe of the KKK and did a great job. But it has now morphed into a radical left group that classified almost anyone in the right as an extremist.

As a university student I was a huge supporter and member of Amnesty International. They stood up for political prisoners everywhere. Now they are extremely selective with their campaigns, and have widened their sphere to much wider political issues.

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists did a great job with the Doomsday Clock where thermonuclear war really was an existential threat. Since the end of the Cold War, they have also become a ridiculous organisation that keeps moving the clock closer to midnight, on the basis of new criteria such as AI and climate change.

Oxfam used to be a great aid organisation. Now they are a political lobby group disguised as a charity.

The ALCU used to be a fearless defender of civil rights. They would defend even the right of Nazis to protest. Now they won’t even defend the right of people to hold gender critical views. Likewise the NZ Council for Civil Liberties only seems to come to life for views their activists agree with.

In New Zealand multiple bodies that used to have huge respect across the political spectrum – the Medical Council, the Law Society etc have become captured by left wing activists and are trying to impose Treaty ideology on their professions at the risk of deregistration.

These are not isolated examples. It is happening everywhere. When we talk about the falling trust in institutions, part of the problem is the capture of institutions by the left. They can’t just leave them to remain with a narrow focus – the KKK, political prisoners, registering doctors etc. They have to transform them into allies for their left wing views. The result is they lose status and trust.

I heard some time ago the story that the TVNZ Political Editor called a (gay) journalist the fa***t word at a function in a Minister’s office last year. I did not hear about it from an MP or staffer. I was amazed that it was never reported on.

Ani O’Brien did what no one else (including me) would and ran it yesterday. It has now (finally) been covered by legacy media outlets.

I have three main thoughts on this.

1. Calling a gay person the f word, in anger, is a terrible thing to do. This isn’t just being rude or slightly offensive. It is something that you just do not do.
2. I don’t think Maiki should lose her job over it, and it should not define her. People sometimes stuff up and do bad things. We should judge people over their entire contribution, not solely on the basis of the worst thing they have ever done. We are too quick to tear people down.
3. There has been an incredible double standard with the cone of silence over what happened (in front of many journalists). Yes, it was a private social function, but consider whether it would not have been reported if say an MP had called a gay journalist the F word. Of course it would have. Or not even an MP – say a staffer, a public servant, or a business person. If 20 journalists saw (for example) a high profile businessman call someone the f word, it would have been reported within minutes or hours.

It is the double standard that has wound most people up. Anyone else would have faced journalists camping outside their workplace or home asking them if they will resign, whether they hate gay people etc. They would have to (at a minimum) do a public statement apologising for their behaviour etc.

Some have suggested it was nor reported on as there is a convention what happens at private functions at Parliament is off the record. They are right, that there is an expectation of privacy at social events. What you say to people at the press gallery party for example is not for reporting. And if you drink a bit too much and say something embarrassing, again that is not news worthy. But there is a line. And calling a gay journalists a fa***t as part of an argument clearly crosses the line. If someone called a Maori journalist a n****r at a social function, would you really argue that is not reportable?

Now again, while it is was newsworthy, I think people should have some compassion for Maiki. She’s the mum of six children and has to explain to them why she is in the news, not reporting it. I suspect she is mortified by what she did, and again you should not judge someone by the worse thing they have done.

But people might rightfully say media have not been known for showing compassion to others who have behaved badly. Again it is the double standard.

Whenever I have interviewed children – and their parents – for a school place my key question has been: Do you read often?

If they say yes … I know we already have a young person on a great path.

If they say no … my response is that we need to change that!

This article – among many others – supports that plan.

”A child who starts reading for fun by age nine enters adolescence with measurably different brain structure than a peer who never picked up the habit. That is the central finding of a study published in Psychological Medicine, which examined brain scans and cognitive tests from more than 10,000 young adolescents across the United States.”

”Researchers from the University of Cambridge and Fudan University in Shanghai found that early reading for pleasure correlated with larger total brain cortical areas and volumes. The differences appeared in regions that govern language processing, attention control, and sensory integration, including the temporal, frontal, and insula cortices. Those same regions have been previously linked to improved mental health and behavioral regulation.”

“Teenagers who read for pleasure every day correctly identified 26 percent more words than peers who never read in their spare time. Those who grew up in homes with many books scored 42 percent higher than teenagers from homes with few books. After the team controlled for parental education, occupation, and cognitive tests administered when the children were five, daily readers still scored 12 percent higher.”

For the record – not only did I encourage my children to read – I read to them every night from when they were two until 14 years old. These were some of the books:

The Lord of the Rings J. R. R. Tolkien

The Hobbit – J. R. R. Tolkien

The Father Christmas Letters – J. R. R. Tolkien

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight – J. R. R. Tolkien

The Adventures of Tom Bombadil – J. R. R. Tolkien

Farmer Giles of Ham – J. R. R. Tolkien

Smith of Wootton Major – J. R. R. Tolkien

Leaf by Niggle – J. R. R. Tolkien

The Magician’s Nephew – C. S. Lewis

The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe – C. S. Lewis

The Horse and His Boy – C. S. Lewis

Prince Caspian – C. S. Lewis

The Voyage of the Dawn Treader – C. S. Lewis

The Silver Chair – C. S. Lewis

The Last Battle – C. S. Lewis

Pilgrims Regress – C. S. Lewis

The Back of the North Wind – George MacDonald

The Princess and the Goblin – George MacDonald

The Princess and Curdie – George MacDonald

The Golden Key – George MacDonald

The Complete Fairy Tales – George MacDonald

Phantastes – George MacDonald

The Last of the Mohicans – James Fenimore Cooper

The Adventures of Tom Sawyer – Mark Twain

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn – Mark Twain

Tom Brown’s Schooldays – Thomas Hughes

The Enchanted Castle – E. Nesbit

The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy – Douglas Adams

The Tanglewood’s Secret – Patricia St John

Treasures of the Snow – Patricia St John

The Victor – Patricia St John

Rainbow Garden – Patricia St John

The Mystery of Pheasant Cottage – Patricia St John

Star of Light – Patricia St John

The Secret of the Fourth Candle – Patricia St John

In the Grip of Winter – Colin Dann

The Big Fisherman – Lloyd C. Douglas

The Robe – Lloyd C. Douglas

The Jungle Book (1 & 2) – Rudyard Kipling

Just So Stories – Rudyard Kipling

Robinson Crusoe – Daniel Defoe

Swiss Family Robinson – Jonnie Wyss

Treasure Island – Robert Louis Stevenson

To Kill a Mocking Bird – Harper Lee

Fantastic Mr Fox – Roald Dahl

The Minpins – Roald Dahl

James and the Giant Peach – Roald Dahl

The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar – Roald Dahl

Revolting Rhymes – Roald Dahl

The Giraffe the Pelly and Me – Roald Dahl

Dirty Beasts – Roald Dahl

Chalie and the Chocolate Factory – Roald Dahl

Esio Trot – Roald Dahl

My Year – Roald Dahl

The BFG – Roald Dahl

Boy – Roald Dahl

George’s Marvelous Medecine – Roald Dahl

Danny The Champion of the World – Roald Dahl

Going Solo – Roald Dahl

Matilda – Roald Dahl

The Secret Garden Frances – Hodgson Burnett

Hans Andersons Fairy Tales Hans Christian Anderson

I Am David – Anne Holm

The Silver Sword – Ian Serraillier

Peter Pan – J. M. Barrie

Artemis Fowl – Eion Colfer

Winnie the Pooh – A. A. Milne

And Then We Were Six – A. A. Milne

Wind in the Willows – Kenneth Grahame

The Little White Horse – Elizabeth Gouge

Aesop’s Fables – Aesop

White Fang – Jack London

Dragon Boy – Dick King-Smith

Babe – Dick King-Smith

Charlotte’s Web – E. B. White

Stuart Little – E. B. White

The Knight and the Squire – Terry Jones

Watership Down – Richard Adams

The Odyssey – Homer

Anamalia – Graeme Base

The Eleventh Hour – Graeme Base

The Discovery of Dragons – Graeme Base

The 27^th Annual African Hippopotamus Race – Morris Lurie

The Snow Goose – Paul Gallico

Gullivers Travels – Jonathan Swift

Oliver Twist – Charles Dickens

365 Bible Stories – God

Alice in Wonderland – Lewis Carroll

Through the Looking Glass – Lewis Carroll

Alan Quartermain – Rider Haggard

Exodus – Leon Uris

The Storm – Frederick Buechner

On the Road with the Archangel – Frederick Buechner

Son of Laughter – Frederick Buechner

Wuthering Heights – Emily Bronte

[email protected]