The news is like buses. There’s nothing for ages and then the stories all come at once and yesterday was incredible so quick notes on three stories.

Firstly, Iain Lees-Galloway. Mr Onceover-Lightly, what could possibly go wrong and if it does, it’s not my fault.

It’s always the Minister’s fault, Minister. That’s the point about Ministerial oversight and responsibility. But here’s a thing; listening to his reasoning at 1pm yesterday, I was struck by his final comments. He said he’d review his and the IMS procedures and then added, on his own volition, an example. He said he’d start reading the files before the meetings! Hello! You think? Bully for you!

Which gives credence to the belief that Iain Lees-Galloway swanned in, had a look at the notes provided, and made a decision. Which raises some red flags to me. He was very possibly blindly following the advice of his bureaucrats who were pointing out the issues. So the so-called professionals are not without blame. Advice to all politicians. If you want to get it right, read all the guff, prepare, and don’t trust the bureaucrats.

Now, on the spies deciding Spark should not use Huawei to build the 5G network. This came after American pressure last week on its allies not to use the Chinese company. You can see why. After all, would China use an American company to build its telecommunications infrastructure? Of course not. And we are part of the Five Eyes spying programmes with the States.

We’ve already reported that New Zealand is caught betwixt and between two trade warring superpowers and we’d eventually have to choose. We upset China with our investment in the Pacific. We did it again with some forthright statements from our Foreign Minister. And now we’ve chosen America again. No wonder Jacinda Ardern’s visit to China has been postponed and the chances of an improved FTA just took a step backwards. It’s going to be a frosty time with China in the short term.

And then to Sir Michael Cullen and a possible Capital Gains Tax. Silver-tongued Cullen almost made the whole thing sound logical. He argues with an ageing population we’re running out of taxpayers. The Labour based revenue will decrease and so we need to supplement it with capital taxation and revenue. He claims there’ll be no more tax gathered. That the whole thing could be fiscally neutral.

But that’s not wholly true. The next generation of taxpayers will be hit on their labour and their capital. I doubt very much whether they’ll not end out paying more tax than their elders and they’re not going to take that.

After all, turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.