It was always going to happen. The PM prevaricates over taking more refugees from Syria and when he softens his stance and takes 750 over two and a half years - its not enough for opponents. Key has apparently buckled to the public pressure - but it is no more than a token gesture according to the naysayers.

The truth is, the 750 blindsided the anti-Key mob. They didn't expect so many. The opposition had to rewrite their pre-prepared press releases. The activist media driving the campaign for more refugees came back with the only response possible - its not enough. We can do more. The public want us to do more. Really? I have seen no independent polls on that question. I have no idea if this is what middle NZ wants or not.

Government policy is not made by the twittering classes or by those who think they know best.

I think the number of 750 Syrian refugees over two and a half years is about right. Its the right thing to do and is probably about at our limit. The argument that we should take the same number of refugees as Australia per head of population, which would be 3000 people per year, is nonsensical, it doesn't account for our ability to support them.

I can only go on what the government says its advice is, and that is, that we can't.  I'm hearing all this twaddle about how we can cope with more refugees but what I see is political correctness - irrational hand wringing. As I've said previously, these people don't see consequences. Its all full steam ahead.

However, if these opposition parties think 3000 refugees is a good plan then take it to the next election - then we will see whether middle NZ supports it or not.

INTO THE RIVER

There has been a lot of talk over a teenage book, Into the River, by Ted Dawe which has been pulled from shelves until it gets a classification.

Family First appealed the unrestricted classification and so it goes back to be adjudicated on. It has not been banned permanently and won't be. Family First say they had never intended to have the book banned. I believe them.

The discussion has lost context.

The book tells a tale of a young boy -his sexual encounters and drug use. It has explicit content.

The book people have no problems with this teenage book,  being unrestricted. Its all about freedom of expression in their eyes. This is nonsense. On that basis there would be no restrictions on anything and we wouldn't need a Censor.

The argument is over whether it should be R18, R14, or unrestricted. Now sure, the officials have been all over the shop on this, and if it had stayed at R14, there probably wouldn't be this debate.

If the book was made into a movie, its likely it would be restricted.

The silly thing about all of this is that kids can go and buy Fifty Shades of Grey if they want to. They can also buy Into the River on Amazon if they want to via Kindle. So any classification at the end of the day won't mean anything.

The only winner is the author.