Stuff reports:

The United States has launched a joint military strike with the UK and France against Syria, US President Donald Trump has announced.

The attack came in retaliation for a suspected deadly chemical attack in the war-torn country which killed upwards of 80 people in the rebel-held town of Douma.

When a government used chemical weapons in contravention of international law and agreements, there should be consequences.

The only thing that may stop Assad from doing this again, is that the consequences of doing so are heavy enough to deter him.

Trump, who addressed the American people from 1pm Saturday (NZT), said America had “launched precision strikes” on targets associated with Syrian chemical weapons programme of president Bashar al-Assad.

“This massacre was a significant escalation in a pattern of chemical weapons use by that very terrible regime,” he said. 

“The evil and the despicable attack left mothers and fathers, infants and children thrashing in pain and gasping for air. These are not the actions of a man. They are crimes of a monster instead”.

It was understood both military ships and aircraft were used in the strike. Shortly after Trump began his televised address, reports of explosions in the Syrian capital, Damascus emerged.

Trump also a criticised Russia, an ally of the Syrian government and suspected to be involved in the recent chemical strike, and Iran, which also provides military support to Assad.

Have to say that the notion that Trump is a vassal of Russia is not supported by the evidence that when important interests are at stake, he has done the right thing.

Putin will be furious as he threatened consequences if there were any strikes against Assad, and this makes him look weak.

“To Iran and Russia I ask: what kind of nation wants to be associated with the mass murder of innocent men, women and children?”

“The nations of the world can be judged by the friends they keep. No nation can succeed in the long run by promoting rogue states, brutal tyrants and murderous dictators,” he said, referring to Assad.

“Russia must decide if it will continue down this dark path or if it will join with civilised nations as a force for stability and peace. Hopefully someday we’ll get along with Russia and maybe even Iran, but maybe not.”

If only we had a Government and a Foreign Minister who could speak so bluntly about Russia.

Bari Weiss writes in the NYT:

Ms. Knoll, 85, believed Mr. Hollande. France was her place, her home, her country. And Paris was her city. …

She remained in her apartment in the 11th arrondissement when, suffering from Parkinson’s disease, she was stabbed 11 times. Her apartment was then set on fire. Firefighters found the burned body on Friday night.

Shane Jones has been trying to say that NZ First got a win for provincial NZ because they got a temporary exemption for onshore oil and gas exploration. This ignores the fact that they chose to put in place a Labour/Green Government rather than a National Government (even though National won more seats than Labour and Greens combined).

In just the last month the Government that Winston personally chose has:

1. Whacked regions with a 14 cent petrol tax to pay for urban public transport
2. Cut spending on state highways in the provinces
3. Canned provincial irrigation schemes
4. Banned all future offshore oil and gas prospecting

None of this was in the coalition agreement they signed. None of this would have happened if they had chosen a National-led Government. They have betrayed all their provincial and rural voters, and I am sure there will be utu come the next election.

What exactly have they got for their voters? A slush fund which is helping fund a cathedral! That’s really what people in the provinces need.

Lord Ashcroft writes:

If in November 2020 we are looking back on how Donald J. Trump came to be re-elected as President of the United States, those undergoing a second round of horror and dismay will find themselves reflecting on how seriously, and how often, they underestimated their foe.

The left has history when it comes to looking down on, and therefore underrating, its opponents. Ronald Reagan was derided as a genial but bumbling movie actor but was elected twice to govern both his state and his country. As was George W. Bush, who seemed to inspire a kind of hysterical contempt in his adversaries: Haha, he’s so stupid. He says words like “misunderestimate.” Oh, he’s beaten us. Again.

History will judge Bush better than his opponents at the time did.

You might think that the anti-Trumpists would have begun to learn from this long series of events, but apparently not. Their opinion of Trump as a man need not have changed from the one they formed two years ago in the primaries, but neither does their view of his capabilities seem to have evolved. Inevitably, then, their underestimations continue.

This error takes two forms. The first is to deny his achievements, and therefore miss how they galvanise his support. As I found in my most recent round of research, one of the things Trump voters most often say they like about his presidency is the economy: new jobs, higher take-home wages and, of course, the booming stock market. His opponents naturally refuse him the credit for these things. Yet speaking during her campaign about President Bill Clinton’s economic record, Hillary herself said “the results speak for themselves… America saw the longest peacetime expansion in our history.” Well, either a president deserves the plaudits for economic success or he doesn’t. And according to my recent focus groups in Memphis, Tenn., and Oxford, Miss., Trump voters see a direct connection.

Yep the economy matters. Jobs matter. Incomes matter.

The invitation for Trump to hold face-to-face talks with Kim Jung Un provides another instance. Had this improbable event occurred under Barack Obama, a second Nobel Peace Prize would already be on the way. But Trump, his critics suggest, is merely reaping the reward of painstaking South Korean diplomacy — or, worse, is being played by the Pyongyang regime. Many of the voters we spoke to earlier this month were apprehensive about what might happen (“it could probably go either way,” one said with wary understatement), but saw the prospect of talks as a vindication of Trump’s robust approach. North Korea liked to act tough, “and if we don’t push back, they get their way a little bit more,” another observed. “But when we pushed back, he kind of fell back down and said, hey, I’ll talk to you.”

And I’m skeptical of his moves on trade. But hey if he negotiates a settlement with China that sees them reduce tariffs on US goods, he’ll get a lot of credit.

Where critics see a volatile individual embarrassing America on the world stage, many voters see a shrewd player showing that he, and therefore his country, can no longer be taken for granted. For them, his “Muslim ban” was not an act of bigotry but a long overdue measure to protect national security; his threatened steel tariffs are not an irresponsible overture to a trade war but an opening move in a plan to reorganize NAFTA and bring jobs back to America; his wading into the controversy over NFL players “taking a knee” during the national anthem was not a racial provocation but an endorsement of public patriotism. Whether any of these things are right in principle, and whether the policies will work in practice, is a different question. The point is that while his rivals scoff, most of the people who put Donald Trump in the White House see a president standing up for America and standing up for them.

And his approval rating has been slowly improving.

A report by Policy Exchange in 2005 looks at how Ireland responded to a shortage of housing. Sounds a bit like where this Government may end up:

Despite the impressive increase in housing supply, there are more and more voices questioning the assumption that a successful housing supply policy consists of delivering numbers only. Dr Stevenson is highly critical of what Irish planning and development have achieved over recent years. …

What did this quick fix solution look like? It basically consisted of delivering large numbers of units in a very short time. First, large numbers of flats – something the
Irish were not used to – went up, in the form of large apartment-blocks. Second, whole new housing colonies were built, often consisting of hundreds of virtually
identical semi-detached or terraced houses lacking any individual character. …

His observation is confirmed by Ronan O’Driscoll, the Director of the Dublin new homes division of Hamilton Osborne King, Ireland’s market leader in real estate.86 He remembers that when he started to work in the real estate business some fifteen years ago, around 45 per cent of new houses were ‘family houses’, i.e.
houses with a floor space of around 125 m2. This proportion
has now fallen to less than 5 per cent.

Liam O’Donnell from the Institute of Professional Auctioneers and Valuers adds: “Spacious three bedroom houses of good quality are currently not being built in the Greater Dublin area.” To sum up, in the words of Dr Brendan Williams: “The quantity of our supply is very, very good. The quality leaves a lot to be desired.”

I like what Labour is proposing with an urban building authority and removing Auckland’s urban/rural boundary. But having the Government build 4,000 homes on a 29 hectare block doesn’t sound like a recipe for quality.

The Daily Mail reports:

The debating society of Australia’s oldest and most prestigious university has declared that half of its competitors in a national tournament must be transgender males or women.

The University of Sydney has introduced new rules for the upcoming Easters event, where students from across Australia and Asia duke it out on topical issues over the public holiday long weekend.

It states that ‘no less than 50 per cent’ of debaters across all teams must identify as ‘non cis-male’. Cis-gender describes a person who identifies with their sex at birth.

Not just a gender quota.

The debating club at the University of Sydney also has an affirmative action rule for its top three teams, stipulating that at least one debater be a ‘person of colour from a minority ethno-cultural background, or marginalised by white supremacy’.

Jews were marginalised by Aryan supremacy. Would they qualify?

Conservative columnist Rita Panahi, who was born in Iran, described the policy as ‘just insane’.

‘Identity politics is so toxic. It’s divisive, it’s degrading. It pushes this victimhood narrative that is often completely at odds with reality,’ she told Sydney radio station 2GB on Wednesday.

‘Really, speaking as someone who is a woman and who is from an ethnic background… if I was selected on merit I would be so appalled because it completely undermines my achievement.’

Panahi often speaks a lot of sense.

After many delays the Government finally quietly published the Martin Jenkins evaluation of charter schools.

This summary below will give you some idea of why they didn’t want any publicity around it. They are closing down a model that was working very well.

• All of the PSKH are attracting priority learners (as was the policy intention), including learners with complex needs. Sponsors’ views on their students’ needs were corroborated by analysis of administrative data. The analysis confirmed PSKH students meet the definition of ‘priority’, and that prior to attending a PSKH many were transient and many had been disengaged.
• PSKH had a good understanding of their students both as a group and as individuals. While students bring a range of strengths to their education, sponsors told us that many also come with low academic baselines and core skills, histories of disengagement from education and complex socio-economic and health needs. In addition, many lack positive aspirations and role models.
• PSKH are meeting their learners’ needs using good and innovative practices. Practices are matched to local needs while still meeting high quality standards.
• Innovations are driven by an intention to provide better education for students who had been under-served by the education system.
• Innovations within PSKH are enabled by the funding model, with governance and management showing the most innovation in the first year. PSKH appoint governance boards to access specific skills, and split management functions into administration (CEO) and academic leadership (principal).
• PSKH are also innovating in other areas (staffing, student engagement and support, and pedagogy, teaching and learning), but to a lesser extent. PSKH are less innovative in the areas of curriculum and engagement with the community, however they are using good practices (eg tailoring to context and need).
• Further work in the second year of the evaluation found that teaching and learning approaches in PSKH are specifically driven by schools’ understanding of students’ needs and their local context. Teaching and learning is supported by good (and in some cases very good) assessment practices. PSKH leaders have a good understanding of assessment
• Conditions enabling successful operation of PSKH include small rolls and class sizes, strong sponsor visions and sponsors building on a history of success in education.
• Whānau and learner experiences appear to be positive.
• PSKH offerings and innovations are strongly driven by sponsors’ visions. Sponsors valued the opportunity to provide an integrated approach that offered an alternative to the current system. Sponsors focus all aspects of delivery on meeting the needs of priority students.
• Whānau whose children are currently attending a PSKH are attracted to the offerings and values (including cultural values) of PSKH. Whānau are satisfied with what PSKH are delivering and feel the PSKH are offering a positive alternative.
• Whānau whose children are currently attending a PSKH also reported feeling more involved in their child’s learning, and more confident communicating with the PSKH. Very few learners appear to be opting out of PSKH.
• The range and nature of innovations we found within PSKH provided early evidence the schools/kura were developing innovative solutions to match local needs while still meeting high quality standards.
• The funding model was a key innovation but different to the others as it is a structural component that enables other potential innovation.
• The greatest levels of innovation in the first year of operation were in governance and management.
• The key driver of innovation was found at the governance level: the sponsor’s vision provides the impetus and mandate for innovation in all other areas.
• A key innovation in governance was enabled by the policy — this is that boards were appointed for specific expertise without the need to involve parents.
• Management enacted the sponsor’s vision by implementing specific innovations across the school/kura.
• A key innovation in management was the split between administration (CEO) and academic leadership (principal).
• Innovative practices and examples of best practice were evident in three dimensions driven by management.
• Staffing: skilled staff support and bring innovation — they were experienced (including the small number of unregistered teachers) and brought a strong focus on improving outcomes for priority students; staff shared the responsibility for ongoing innovation with sponsors and management and were employed under individual contracts.
• Student engagement and support: there was a strong focus on student wellbeing and engagement using a range of best practice approaches and innovations.
• Pedagogy, teaching and learning: multiple examples of best practice, with approaches well matched to context and student need — while similar examples can be found in state schools, these practices are not widespread across the state sector.

USA Today reports:

The nation’s annual federal deficit will grow “rapidly” over the next four years and will exceed $1 trillion by 2020, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Monday.

The deficit will hit $804 billion this year, a 21% increase over 2017, and will continue to grow through 2022 — hitting historically high levels and adding to the national debt.

The changes are a result of lower revenues, stemming from the Republican-crafted tax cut law enacted in December, and increased spending from the bipartisan budget agreement Congress passed earlier this year.

The budget deficit will be 4.2% of the nation’s gross domestic product in 2018, and will grow to 5.1% in 2022, the CBO estimates.

That is a huge deficit – both in nominal terms and in terms of a percentage of the economy.

When the reckoning comes, it will be ugly.

Stuff reports:

Vogel family descendants have gone to court to try to overturn a decision that denied them an uncontested opportunity to reclaim their grandparents’ Lower Hutt home.

They’ve been trying for years to get it for free or greatly discounted.

Jocelyn Vogel and husband James gifted the house to the Crown in 1965, according to Heritage New Zealand, due to fears it would be subdivided after they died, but their grandsons fear that is exactly what would be likely to happen unless it was returned to them.

The home was used as the Prime Minister’s official Wellington residence for about 13 years, but is now considered surplus, so Tim and Geoff Vogel are claiming “emotional hardship”, and want it returned without having to compete for it.

Emotional hardship if they can’t get a $5 million home for free. Yep that is emotionally hard.

The Crown decided to get rid of it in 2013, “on the basis of it being under-utilised [and] considered expensive to maintain”, according to the Department of Internal Affairs.

A pity as it is a beautiful house. Had many good times there.

The property was offered to the Vogel Charitable Trust and the Wellington SPCA – both beneficiaries of Jocelyn Vogel’s estate – in January 2016 for $415,000, which was said to be the value of the improvements. 

Jocelyn Vogel’s grandsons, Tim and Geoff Vogel, appealed against the decision in a bid to regain the home in which they were raised, on the grounds of “emotional hardship”.

At the High Court in Wellington on Monday the lawyer for the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Rachel Roff, said it was accepted and acknowledged that the Vogels had an emotional attachment to the land, but not to the point where it met the threshhold of hardship under the relevant law.

They haven’t lived there for at least 53 years.

The key thing is what Jocelyn Vogel wrote in her will. If she wanted it to be returned to the family in case of no longer being needed as a ministerial house, then she could have written that in her will.

The brothers’ lawyer, Richard Fowler, QC, said some umbrage was taken to the suggestion that there was anything contrived about the emotional hardship claimed.

It was not faux or fake, he said.

Of course not. Hell I’d be emotionally distraught if I could get a $5 million for free or cheap, and missed out.

He quoted a statement by Tim Vogel about the family’s association with the area of the Hutt Valley that went back 160 years, that his family built the house and no other private family had lived at the property.

The house is not 160 years old though. It was built in 1933. So it was occupied by the Vogels for just 32 years and been a Crown House for around 50 years.

Wayne Mapp writes:

Getting a fix on the ideological bent of the Jacinda Ardern led government has proved challenging, but perhaps the transport plan and the Unitec housing plan provide the first real indication. It is less of a traditional socialist/capitalist economic divide and more about sociological differences between traditional New Zealand and those who are part of new internationalist urban elite. …

Labour has not helped itself by sounding like zealots. In particular Twyford feels he must demonise everything that National has ever done. For him there is no merit in having the motorway extended to Hamilton, or presumably for that matter, the Waterview tunnel project. The three laneing of the southern motorway and the north western motorway are apparently of zero value to Auckland commuters. So long as Labour is government there will not be a single new motorway project or even improvements to existing motorways. When all the current National motorway projects are complete, that’s it. From then on, the priority is public transport.

According to Twyford on Radio Live recently, it is a bad thing that his constituents in West Auckland all own cars. They should be using public transport, walking or cycling, just as the key Green ministers do. But even in Bayswater where I live, and where there are very good public transport services, there has been an explosion in car ownership over the last 15 years. It seems as if everyone over 18 must have their own car. The main reason why people buy cars is that it gives choice and freedom. People can go where they want, when they want.

A car is independence. It means you can go from Point A to Point B and on your timetable. Public transport is great, but it has its limits. It is not a substitute for car ownership. It is complementary.

Twyford is moving into the dangerous territory of telling people how they should live, and in addition making them pay for it, whether or not they can use it. The whole transport plan smacks of making all drivers throughout New Zealand pay for a light rail project in the central Auckland suburbs that will primarily benefit the elite young professionals that drive current Labour Party philosophy.

Twyford needs to remember what happened with the showerhead fiasco of the last days of the Clark government. And many years before that, in the 1970s, Labour made it illegal for anyone to build a house of 150 metres square. It is all indicative of the nanny state where the state uses its superior judgment in deciding how you should live your life.

People hate these sorts of diktats, they are the sort of things that result in governments losing elections.

Labour has told people in Hamilton, Tauranga, Ashburton etc that they not only have to pay more for their petrol, but there will be a funding cut on the roads they actually use. They have to pay more to get less.

Tim Watkin writes:

For whatever reason, it was considered impolite to note Jacinda Ardern’s lack of leadership experience in last year’s election campaign. But I raised it then and it would be unwise not to raise it now. It’s not necessarily her age as such – although being the second youngest Prime Minister in our history is notable – as it is her limited time as leader. A late run into the job turned out to be great for winning an election, but it’s much harder when you’re learning your own leadership style at the same time as you’re learning how to run the country. It’s a big ask and she seems to be struggling.

Listening to her interviews, you hear Ardern still earnestly explaining, sometimes almost pleading for understanding. The raw confidence of that famous first press conference is seen only in flashes. She still seems to be trying on the Prime Minister’s clothes, and they don’t seem to quite fit. 

Maybe it’s just teething problems, but she’s had a series of ministers who have put in at best sloppy performances in recent weeks, forgetting and mishandling sensitive issues of government. Sure, some of these have come outside her party, from the likes of Shane Jones and Eugenie Sage, but Ardern’s response has lacked authority.

That may come in time. Time will tell.

The Herald reports:

Two Opposition MPs want law changes to clean up New Zealand’s $50 billion apartment sector, dogged by disputes, power struggles, lax governance, lack of pre-purchase disclosure, poor maintenance and management plans and financial issues.

Auckland Central MP Nikki Kaye and housing and urban development spokeswoman Judith Collins have met Housing Minister Phil Twyford with Kaye saying that as a result, they hope changes will be underway soon.

A nice reminder that not everything is adversarial. Kaye has been working on this issue for some years, and while there has been a change of Government, she’s still pursuing it with the relevant Ministers.

“Judith Collins and I recently met with the Minister of Housing. We committed – if we were in government – to have a unit titles reform bill introduced into Parliament by Christmas last year. The minister has said he is interested in progressing the reform that the last government was progressing but that it may take until the latter part of this year to draft a reform bill.

“Judith and I are working with some sector representatives to try and progress the drafting of a member’s bill so we can move quicker on this. The final details of a bill would need to be agreed by the National caucus but we hope to have something ready in the next two months,” Kaye said.

So we may get a Government bill by year’s end, or a members’ bill earlier.

HDPA writes:

It’s never wise to make bold predictions in politics, but here’s one I’m willing to make.

Unless something major changes within the Green Party, it won’t be in Parliament in a decade. In fact, a decade may be too generous.

I say this because the Green Party has a split personality. 

She continues:

The split personality can’t go on living together. Not only is the animosity in the party too great, but not all voters who care about the environment also want to give hand outs to beneficiaries.

Take, for example, Jenny from Pukekohe. She hasn’t bought plastic food wrap since she learned turtles choke to death on the stuff, goes to great lengths to recycle and wants to leave a clean planet for her grandkids.

But she also worked hard to pay off her mortgage so doesn’t like the Greens’ policy to introduce a 40 per cent tax on income over $150,000 or their policy to increase the dole by 20 per cent.

Jenny and her mates will be the first to desert the Greens when another party gives them an alternative place for their votes.

Some voters want environmentalism without socialism.

Once all the other parties go green, the Greens will lose their big point of difference. And what are they when that’s gone?

All they’ll be is a far-left party that condones beneficiary fraud and wants to make it easier to stay on the dole.

And will that get them 5%?

The 2018 figures are based on the first three months multiplied by four.

While the death toll is still in the thousands, it is significant that in 2014 over 30,000 were killed and so far in 2018 under 3,000 have died. There’s been a strong downwards trend for four years.

I suspect most (but not all) of this is related to the defeats the Islamic State has suffered.

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has banned future offshore oil and gas exploration in New Zealand.

The only exploration likely to be contemplated by the new Government is on-shore exploration, limited to energy-rich Taranaki.

“We’re protecting industry and protecting future generations from climate change,” said Ardern.

It does no such thing. It means we will merely import more oil and gas from overseas.

National has pointed out:

“This decision will ensure the demise of an industry that provides over 8000 high paying jobs and $2.5 billion for the economy,” Energy and Resources Spokesperson Jonathan Young says. …

“This decision is devoid of any rationale. It certainly has nothing to do with climate change.   These changes will simply shift production elsewhere in the world, not reduce emissions.

“Gas is used throughout New Zealand to ensure security of electricity supply to every home in New Zealand. Our current reserves will last less than ten years – when they run out we will simply have to burn coal instead, which means twice the emissions.

So we will end up importing coal rather than using our own gas. Just so the PM can virtue signal how pure we are.

The Herald reports:

The Government has proposed an “audacious” target of zero deaths on New Zealand roads.

Associate Health Minister Julie Anne Genter announced plans for a new road safety strategy this morning, which will include the “Vision Zero” target.

“A target of zero deaths is audacious, and it’s also been successful,” Genter told an audience of mayors, councillors and officials in Wellington.

“Countries like Canada, Sweden, and Norway all aim for zero road deaths and have considerably lower fatality rates than New Zealand.”

A zero target is a meaningless target and one that a Government does when it is too chicken to be held accountable.

If you have a realistic target such as a 10% reduction, then if you fail to meet it, you can have some accountability.

But a zero target means no one expects it to be met, so it will be ignored.

Why don’t we also have a target for zero cancer deaths?

If the Government was serious about zero road deaths, it would set a maximum speed limit of 30 km/hr.

Genter has tried to justify this zero target approach on the basis that Sweden halved their road toll in 20 years using it. But this is nonsense as most countries have had their road tolls half. This is because roads and cares are safer.

Take NZ. In 1993 the road toll rate per 10,000 vehicles was 2.67. In 2013 it was 0.77 – a 71% reduction.

Australia has some good international comparative data. We can compare the following:

• road toll per capita – NZ dropped 73.4% and Sweden 70.3%
• road toll per vehicle – NZ dropped 75.8% and Sweden 76.5%
• road toll per km – NZ dropped 57.1% and Sweden 62.2%

The beginning year is 1990 for the first two and 2000 for the last (as that is first year data for NZ. The end year is 2013 as that was the low point in our toll. So what we did from 1990 to 2013 has been just as successful as Sweden. Our focus should be on what has changed since 2013 and reversing it. Not on nonsense zero targets.

Newshub reports:

The Government has launched an inquiry into Operation Burnham – the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) raid at the centre of investigative journalism work Hit and Run.

The book by Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson alleges the NZDF took part in a night-time raid on a village, during which civilians were targeted and property deliberately destroyed.

The book claims six civilians – including a three-year-old – were killed, and 15 others injured.

NZDF says one insurgent was killed during the raid, and says it’s possible ammunition fired from a coalition helicopter “had fallen short of its target” and hit two buildings. As a result, a report from ISAF/Afghanistan Government found “civilian casualties may have occurred.”

The inquiry will be former PM Sir Geoffrey Palmer and former Supreme Court Judge Sir Terrence Arnold.

It is worth noting that David Parker has said:

“The footage I have reviewed does not seem to me to corroborate some key aspects of the book Hit & Run.

“The footage suggests that there was a group of armed individuals in the village.

So why are they holding an inquiry? Because they demanded one when they were in Opposition!

Will Hager and Stephenson accept the findings of the inquiry, or only if they back their allegations? Will they apologise to NZDF if an inquiry finds their allegations are incorrect?

Stacey Kirk writes:

People in the regions aren’t stupid. …

Which makes the past week’s Government assault on regional and rural New Zealand all the more baffling.

The details of the assault being:

The Government has unveiled a major shift in transport policy, which will hit every New Zealander in the pocket in some respect

And have people in Hamilton and New Plymouth and Tauranga paying more for their petrol in return for less spending on roads, all so Auckland gets light rail.

and also announced its wind-down of Government funded irrigation schemes.

But hey Taranaki gets some money for a church!

I learned to drive in the back blocks of Pongaroa.

No one really needs to know where that is (it’s in the Tararua district) to imagine how bad the roads are. After every significant rain event, a new part of the road along Route 52 is strewn with rocks and boulders. Or quite literally, half the unmarked road gets washed down a cliff to later have some road cones placed around it.  …

Route 52 and thousands of other similar veins throughout the country are now even less likely to see any improvement, yet regional drivers will be made acutely aware of Auckland’s flashy new light rail system that they’re paying for at the pump. 

They’ve taken $5 billion out of the roading budget and are making provincial motorists pay more!

The hit to regional New Zealand won’t be easily forgotten – not even when Shane Jones rolls in to town to soothe its residents like some sort of Travelling Wilbury to say it’s all right by splashing some of his $1 billion fund on a few hand-picked projects. 

The Government seems set to learn the hard way just how fast the public banks a win and how long it holds a grudge. 

Most in the provinces don’t want handouts. They want a fair go.

Juli Briskman writes:

One sunny Saturday last fall, I hopped on my bike and headed out for a ride near my home in Virginia. President Donald Trump decided to spend some time outdoors that day, too, at the golf course he owns, not far from my biking route. Our paths crossed on Lowes Island Boulevard. As his motorcade sped by, I extended my middle finger in a brief and almost reflexive expression of my frustration with his mean-spirited and narrow-minded politics.

Three days later, I lost my job.

A wire service photographer covering Trump captured the gesture, and a Voice of Americareporter posted the photo online. It went viral. The next evening, I used the photo as the background on my personal Facebook and Twitter accounts, neither of which mentioned where I worked. But after the weekend, I did let my employer, Akima, know that I was the cyclist in the picture.

While acknowledging that the First Amendment protected my right to extend my middle finger, my boss told me that “corporate protection” dictated that he terminate me on the grounds of a social media policy that prohibits “obscene” or “inappropriate” content. Akima does business with the government, and company executives obviously feared that the Trump administration would (unconstitutionally) penalise my employer for my gesture. So, that Tuesday, they forced me out.

 

Henry Cooke writes:

With 110 delegate votes to Julie Anne Genter’s 34 Davidson has been handed a strong mandate from the 6500 or so members of the Green Party to keep the party true to its activist roots.

This should finally and completely end the notion that the Green Party could consider going into Government with National. It was never going to happen under James Shaw and it is really never going to happen with Davidson

Yep permanent appendages to Labour and lapdogs to Winston.

Many Green members don’t want to put more women in the boardroom, they want to destroy it.

Yeah destroy all those corporates. What did they ever do for us, apart from jobs, taxes, products and services. Venezuela shows you don’t need them.