Podcasts about Duplessis

David Du Plessis-shares what Smith wigglesworth told him by RealCUF

David Du Plessis

You know that story about the gang numbers cracking the 10,000 mark? That's classic gotcha politics, isn't it? It doesn't count when the number is 9,999, but once it hits 10,000 - or in this case, 10,009 - it's a thing, and it's the Government's fault. Is it the Government's fault though? I mean, should we actually be angry at Mark Mitchell for this one? I don't think so. I think that what we're seeing right now is the result of stuff that has already happened, mainly- with the deportation of criminals from Australia and the recession that we're in. Recessions lead to an increase in crime for obvious reasons, and the deportation of serious criminals will lead to an increase in gang numbers - probably for a while yet actually - until the likes of the Comancheros and any other heavy outfit that's been brought here from Australia has maxed out its recruitment drive in New Zealand. I think it's highly ironic that Ginny Andersen is the one moaning about this. Do you need me to remind you of Ginny Andersen? Ginny Andersen was one of Labour's run of Police Ministers who totally took their foot off the throat of the gangs when they were in power. Ginny Andersen was the Police Minister at the time that the gang was basically allowed to take over Opotiki for the tangi. Remember that? At least under this Government and this particular Police Minister, police have been given the understanding that they are to crack down on gangs. There have been a huge number of arrests. There are no gang tangi taking over small town roads anymore and there are no gang patches. Laura, the producer, lives out in West Auckland. She reckons she used to see a gang patch every single day, but doesn't see them now. None at all. Now, it doesn't mean that the gang members are gone. You can still see them around the place, they just walk around in their colours, you know, without the patches. Just look for someone wearing an unusual amount of primary colour red. That generally denotes a Mongrel Mob member. Look for somebody with a lot of yellow going on, that's generally somebody from the Comancheros. Lots of primary blue, that'll be your Black Power there. I saw one in his gang colours in Bunnings the other day. But at least they do not have the belief that they can walk around intimidating good people in public places because they don't have their patch on - and them being stripped of that belief actually counts for a lot. Now, I'm not happy the gang numbers have gone up, but they have. And I expect they're gonna keep going up for a while until this economy turns around and the pool of recruits available to the Aussie imports starts drying up. That is not the fault of this Government and it is also not the fault of this Police Minister. And what counts for a lot more is at least these gangs are being cracked down on now. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sad news today - Sir Michael Hill, jeweller, has passed away. Again, he's another larger-than-life figure in New Zealand business - the likes of which we don't seem to be making anymore. Now, I don't know if you realize - I mean, we've all grown up with Michael Hill just being a name we knew - but I don't know if you realize how amazing his story was. He did not start his jewellery business until he was 40 years old. Up til then, he'd been working as a manager in his family's jewellery business. He left school at 16 and headed straight there. He was there for 23 years, got married and had a couple of kids. But one day, his house burnt down. And the story goes that when he was watching his house go up in flames - literally - he decided he needed to change things. So he started his own shop and it was a success. It was more successful than his uncle's business. So he opened seven shops in seven years, and that was a success. So he then decided to open another 70 in seven years. And now, his business is global. It's in New Zealand, it's in Australia, it's in Canada. He's worked with Kim Kardashian, he's designed his own golf course, he has a luxury super yacht, he's got himself a knighthood. And isn't it remarkable, when you think about it, that all of those things happened after he took a massive risk when he turned 40? I mean, 40 is an age when most of us are either at the peak of our careers or absolutely firmly settled in what we're doing. Imagine just tipping it all up and deciding to start your own business at 40. What I love about Michael Hill's story the most was that he did the same thing that many successful people do: he set goals and he visualized them. He wrote his goals down for years in advance - seven years, sometimes even as many as 30 years. And then he imagined what it would be like when he was actually doing that and had achieved those goals. Successful people tell you to do this time and time again. But before you even get to the point of setting that goal, you have to believe that you can achieve it. And he clearly believed it in spades, and he thinks not enough of us believe what we can achieve. He was more, obviously, than just a man who was into money. He promoted art. He was very good at violin - in fact, so good, he founded an international violin competition for young players. He donated to health research. He took his New Zealand business to the world. And he showed, yet again, that you can dream big from a small place like Whangārei. He is an inspiration and he is a loss. But more importantly, he is an example to us all. We just need to set our goals and then go for it. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The news of the day, politically, is that surcharges are gone, as the Government's just banned them. You know what I'm talking about here, right? They're the little extra amount that you get pinged when you turn up at the dairy and you use your credit card, or you use your paywave - it's gone from May next year. The big sell behind this is basically that it's to help you with the cost of living crisis. Now, I hate to do this because I know you're thinking, "Oh, yay." And I'm totally gonna rain on that parade for you. Don't get excited, this is gonna fix nothing. You are still gonna end up paying that cost somehow, probably just through the cost of the bottle of milk that you're buying. Or your haircut, or your sushi or whatever it is - it's gonna be built into the price because the business still has the cost. Nothing is changing there. They've still got to pay that merchant fee. Now, a merchant fee is a very complicated set of charges which the business gets lumped with. And most businesses actually have no bloody idea what makes up that merchant fee. There's a fee from the credit card companies, there's a fee for moving money from the banks, there's the EFTPOS providers - the whole thing gets lumped into the merchant fee and that has not gone away. What's only gone away is the business's ability to be able to recover the cost of some of that through the surcharge. And by the way, the cost of that thing is actually quite big. I've read about one business - just one shop - that pays about $14,000 in a year just for that, just for the merchant fee, to be able to do business electronically. Now, what's going to happen if you go to that shop is, because that guy can't now pass it on to you with a 2 percent, 0.7 percent, 1 percent surcharge or whatever, he's simply going to add it to the cost of his product so that across the year, he makes that $14,000 back. Also, another reason why you shouldn't get excited about it is that this ban does not include anything that you buy online. So you're buying your Air New Zealand tickets? You're still gonna be paying that little $6 handling fee. You're buying some tickets for a concert from Ticketmaster? You're still paying that handling fee. Maybe you want to head along to Banksy? Yep, you're still gonna be paying yourself a nice little $8 handling fee. And the problem with that is that these are some of the most egregious examples, I would have thought, of surcharges just bearing no resemblance to reality - but they still slip through this. So instead of actually sorting out the backroom problems and the real gnarly issues - what has been charged by the banks and the EFTPOS companies and the credit card companies and really excessive surcharges - the Government's just taken the easy option and brought in a ban on the little stuff you buy from the dairy. Good headline. Unfortunately, though, just a charade. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The news of the day, politically, is that surcharges are gone, as the Government's just banned them. You know what I'm talking about here, right? They're the little extra amount that you get pinged when you turn up at the dairy and you use your credit card, or you use your paywave - it's gone from May next year. The big sell behind this is basically that it's to help you with the cost of living crisis. Now, I hate to do this because I know you're thinking, "Oh, yay." And I'm totally gonna rain on that parade for you. Don't get excited, this is gonna fix nothing. You are still gonna end up paying that cost somehow, probably just through the cost of the bottle of milk that you're buying. Or your haircut, or your sushi or whatever it is - it's gonna be built into the price because the business still has the cost. Nothing is changing there. They've still got to pay that merchant fee. Now, a merchant fee is a very complicated set of charges which the business gets lumped with. And most businesses actually have no bloody idea what makes up that merchant fee. There's a fee from the credit card companies, there's a fee for moving money from the banks, there's the EFTPOS providers - the whole thing gets lumped into the merchant fee and that has not gone away. What's only gone away is the business's ability to be able to recover the cost of some of that through the surcharge. And by the way, the cost of that thing is actually quite big. I've read about one business - just one shop - that pays about $14,000 in a year just for that, just for the merchant fee, to be able to do business electronically. Now, what's going to happen if you go to that shop is, because that guy can't now pass it on to you with a 2 percent, 0.7 percent, 1 percent surcharge or whatever, he's simply going to add it to the cost of his product so that across the year, he makes that $14,000 back. Also, another reason why you shouldn't get excited about it is that this ban does not include anything that you buy online. So you're buying your Air New Zealand tickets? You're still gonna be paying that little $6 handling fee. You're buying some tickets for a concert from Ticketmaster? You're still paying that handling fee. Maybe you want to head along to Banksy? Yep, you're still gonna be paying yourself a nice little $8 handling fee. And the problem with that is that these are some of the most egregious examples, I would have thought, of surcharges just bearing no resemblance to reality - but they still slip through this. So instead of actually sorting out the backroom problems and the real gnarly issues - what has been charged by the banks and the EFTPOS companies and the credit card companies and really excessive surcharges - the Government's just taken the easy option and brought in a ban on the little stuff you buy from the dairy. Good headline. Unfortunately, though, just a charade. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Corrections staff are struggling to accommodate at-risk inmates as prison violence and aggression grows. Staff accepted 12-thousand requests from inmates to be separated from the general prison population in the 2023 financial year. Many do so because they feel unsafe or vulnerable, as more prisoners become gang-affiliated. Corrections Association President Floyd du Plessis told Ryan Bridge it's putting greater pressure on staff. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

First up, we need to talk about Gaza. I'm not gonna be graphic, and, and I'm not gonna talk about what it is hap what's happening there in detail. You already know, you can choose to read about it yourself, and I recommend that you do just to the point that you can kind of handle it. Credit, today, to Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister of Australia. He has stopped pussyfooting around what's going on here. He's just put out a strongly worded statement this afternoon. He's demanding that Israel stop starving children to death and let in more aid. He says, we call on Israel to comply immediately with its obligations under international law. Now that is a shed load better than the waffly joint statement we signed up earlier this week. We need to get a spine on this, don't we? I mean, our joint statement didn't even mention the word starvation or starving, or any variation on that word. It is watered down to the point of having absolutely no impact, and that is what it had, no impact. Now I am not naive enough to think that New Zealand telling Israel off is going to change anything, but we've got to do something. And if all we've got is words, then we're gonna have to use them. Because maybe I am naive enough to believe that if enough world leaders call out Israel, name what is going on, don't pussyfoot around it, call the deliberate starvation for what it is. If enough world leaders say, ‘you have got to stop this now', and if enough leaders then enact sanctions on Israel, then surely Trump cannot ignore it anymore. And Trump is the key here. He's the one we have to convince. Now, I know that Israel still has hostages in those tunnels, and as I said earlier this week, Hamas must release them for this war to end. But let me put this to you in very, very stark numbers. 10 hostages is not worth even one of those children's lives. You do not starve a child to death to get 10 hostages out. They are children. I cannot believe that we are watching this happen and that we are letting this happen. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How Dricus Du Plessis made me a FAN | TRUE WarriorSubscribe for more UFC breakdowns! Comment your prediction below!YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyeqcxo3166YJ-JGQK2v3og/videosMusic: ‘Dark Dubstep' by Caramusic, ‘V.I.P.N' by Epic Cloud Trap BeatCopyright Disclaimer: Under Section 107, content used for criticism and commentary. All rights belong to their owners.#dricusduplessis #mma #ufc319

Emile du Plessis, hoof van ekonomiese insig en gedragsekonomie by Standard Bank, gesels oor sy agtergrond, loopbaan, industrie en sy stokperdjies. Volg RSG Geldsake op Twitter

Let's be honest with each other about something. That increase in rough sleeping that the cities are anecdotally reporting to that homelessness report will be caused by the shutting down of those emergency motels. I know the Government's trying to avoid having to admit that, but that is the big thing that's changed since the election. They've shut down the motels and some of the people who were in those motels, or who might have gone to those motels, have ended up on the streets. And I don't think that that's unexpected. That is not an unexpected consequence of taking a tougher line on the motels. Now, don't see me as tough or hard-hearted on this. I don't want anyone sleeping on the streets and I venture most of us don't. But I still think that shutting down those motels was a good idea because that was out of hand, wasn't it? I mean, spending $1.4 billion on emergency accommodation in six years was just way too much money. I prefer the line the Government's taking at the moment, which is to put the obligation where it actually should be, which is on family and friends. Which is to say that if someone finds themselves, God forbid, without a roof over their heads, the first place that they should go for help is not the state. It should be their mum or their brother or their auntie or their son or their friend. And only then when all of their options are exhausted and they really have no one to turn to, then should they turn to the state. But that is not what was happening with the emergency motels. The state was the first port of call. If you think about it, the state has stepped in to take over a lot of roles that we normally would have relied on each other for. And in some cases, it's unavoidable and in some cases it's for the best, for example - police, or whatever. But in this case, let's be honest, $1.4 billion is a lot of money that could have been spent on anything else that we are running dry on right now. Healthcare, cops, education. So actually, the first place you turn to if you don't have somewhere to sleep is your family. Only at the end of the road should the state step in. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

So guess what's happening after Nicola Willis' butter meeting with Fonterra last night? Nothing. After hyping the meeting, after Mikey chasing Miles down the street, after the news going live with the banner across the TV that the Fonterra meeting is underway, after all of that - nothing is happening because nothing can happen, because Fonterra's not ripping us off. We're simply paying the same international price as everyone for butter, which Nicola knows because she's an intelligent woman and because she used to work for Fonterra as well. So, nothing has come from the meeting. There is no announcement about what is being fixed. Miles Hurrell is not resigning or apologizing, and the price of butter is not dropping. All that has happened is that Nicola Willis has fronted up for the media today and told them that Miles Hurrell will talk to them at some time soon to explain how the price of butter works, which is a nothing outcome. In which case, you have to ask yourself the question, what was the point of the meeting? If Nicola actually truly does understand the mechanics of butter pricing, and presumably then also understands that Fonterra isn't ripping us off and also had no plans to announce anything after this, why hype the meeting? I can answer that question for you. Because she wanted to pass the buck. She wanted to blame Fonterra, because National is feeling the pressure over the fact that Labour is now more trusted to deal with the cost of living crisis than National is - according to the Ipsos survey, which is out this month. And because the heat has been cranked up on National, who have talked a very big game about getting the economy back on track - and yet 18 months in, it's still very much off track to the extent that people cannot afford butter. Nicola tried to shift the blame from National to Fonterra and it didn't work. Now, the lesson here is that performance politics doesn't work. Blaming the supermarkets but doing nothing, blaming Fonterra but doing nothing, blaming the banks but doing nothing, that kind of stuff doesn't work. And in fact, it's risky, it runs the risk of backfiring, which is exactly what's happening here. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

So guess what's happening after Nicola Willis' butter meeting with Fonterra last night? Nothing. After hyping the meeting, after Mikey chasing Miles down the street, after the news going live with the banner across the TV that the Fonterra meeting is underway, after all of that - nothing is happening because nothing can happen, because Fonterra's not ripping us off. We're simply paying the same international price as everyone for butter, which Nicola knows because she's an intelligent woman and because she used to work for Fonterra as well. So, nothing has come from the meeting. There is no announcement about what is being fixed. Miles Hurrell is not resigning or apologizing, and the price of butter is not dropping. All that has happened is that Nicola Willis has fronted up for the media today and told them that Miles Hurrell will talk to them at some time soon to explain how the price of butter works, which is a nothing outcome. In which case, you have to ask yourself the question, what was the point of the meeting? If Nicola actually truly does understand the mechanics of butter pricing, and presumably then also understands that Fonterra isn't ripping us off and also had no plans to announce anything after this, why hype the meeting? I can answer that question for you. Because she wanted to pass the buck. She wanted to blame Fonterra, because National is feeling the pressure over the fact that Labour is now more trusted to deal with the cost of living crisis than National is - according to the Ipsos survey, which is out this month. And because the heat has been cranked up on National, who have talked a very big game about getting the economy back on track - and yet 18 months in, it's still very much off track to the extent that people cannot afford butter. Nicola tried to shift the blame from National to Fonterra and it didn't work. Now, the lesson here is that performance politics doesn't work. Blaming the supermarkets but doing nothing, blaming Fonterra but doing nothing, blaming the banks but doing nothing, that kind of stuff doesn't work. And in fact, it's risky, it runs the risk of backfiring, which is exactly what's happening here. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The big news of the day is another $1 deal in the media, which probably tells you everything you need to know about the state of the industry. But this is, on balance, good news for everyone - I would have thought. It's good for you, for viewers, good for Sky, and good for Three. And I'm gonna work backwards on that - Let's start with TV3. It's good news for Three and for the people who work there, because Three continues to exist. A very real alternative must have been for Warner Brothers Discovery, the owners, to shut Three down completely. Now that they've sold it for $1 to Sky, it continues. It's good news for Sky, because it gives Sky TV a chance to make money again off stuff that they already own. For example, and I'm just picking this randomly, let's say White Lotus. Sky TV buys the broadcast rights for the country to White Lotus, they earn the money off White Lotus by sticking it on Sky TV, sticking it on Neon, and we pay a subscription to watch it. Now, they can wait a few months, maybe until all of us who've paid for it have watched it, and then they can dump White Lotus for free on TV3 and Freeview - which is TV3's app - and then they can make money off White Lotus all over again through advertising around the free content. Now, they can already do this with their Sky Open channel, which is a free-to-air channel they already have, but who even knows where on the TV Sky Open is? I have no bloody idea what number it is. Never even watched it before in my life. And does it have an app? Wouldn't know. I know everything you need to know about TV3, I've got the TV3 app, I know where to find it. There is a very strong brand attached to Three. More importantly, I would have thought for Sky TV - this strengthens its arm for sports, right? Sky TV has now got to be the only real choice in town for sports content. Beforehand at least domestically, TVNZ was a real competitor, at least for the free-to-air portion, given so many people watch TVNZ - both its on-air channels and its app. But now, Sky TV's got Three - same same. It doesn't need to have anything to do with TVNZ. Finally, it's good for you and me that this deal was struck today, because who doesn't want excellent free content landing on an app that you already have or a TV channel that you already watch? So good day all round, I would say. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The big news of the day is another $1 deal in the media, which probably tells you everything you need to know about the state of the industry. But this is, on balance, good news for everyone - I would have thought. It's good for you, for viewers, good for Sky, and good for Three. And I'm gonna work backwards on that - Let's start with TV3. It's good news for Three and for the people who work there, because Three continues to exist. A very real alternative must have been for Warner Brothers Discovery, the owners, to shut Three down completely. Now that they've sold it for $1 to Sky, it continues. It's good news for Sky, because it gives Sky TV a chance to make money again off stuff that they already own. For example, and I'm just picking this randomly, let's say White Lotus. Sky TV buys the broadcast rights for the country to White Lotus, they earn the money off White Lotus by sticking it on Sky TV, sticking it on Neon, and we pay a subscription to watch it. Now, they can wait a few months, maybe until all of us who've paid for it have watched it, and then they can dump White Lotus for free on TV3 and Freeview - which is TV3's app - and then they can make money off White Lotus all over again through advertising around the free content. Now, they can already do this with their Sky Open channel, which is a free-to-air channel they already have, but who even knows where on the TV Sky Open is? I have no bloody idea what number it is. Never even watched it before in my life. And does it have an app? Wouldn't know. I know everything you need to know about TV3, I've got the TV3 app, I know where to find it. There is a very strong brand attached to Three. More importantly, I would have thought for Sky TV - this strengthens its arm for sports, right? Sky TV has now got to be the only real choice in town for sports content. Beforehand at least domestically, TVNZ was a real competitor, at least for the free-to-air portion, given so many people watch TVNZ - both its on-air channels and its app. But now, Sky TV's got Three - same same. It doesn't need to have anything to do with TVNZ. Finally, it's good for you and me that this deal was struck today, because who doesn't want excellent free content landing on an app that you already have or a TV channel that you already watch? So good day all round, I would say. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Now, here's a prediction for you - watch those Waikato University medical school costs blowout. I reckon it's gonna blow out and there's all the signs this thing is gonna blow out. Even when the Waikato University was itself putting in less money, which is $100 million, there were questions about whether it could afford it because Waikato University's debt level is maxed out at the moment. So everybody looked at it and went, are you actually gonna be able to afford it? Well now, it not only has to put in the $100 million, it has to put in $150 million between itself and some philanthropists it needs to find. Now, what do you think happens if for whatever reason, it cannot quite find that money? Who do you think is going to be called upon to fund the gap? The long-suffering taxpayer. That's a blowout for us. Now, that's not even mentioning the chances that this thing costs much more than what they say it's gonna cost. I'm very suspicious about how it is that a $380 million project suddenly got cut down to $230 million without anything actually being cut out of it. How did that happen? And even at the higher estimate, which was $380 million, I was already worried that that wasn't really going to cover it, because there were warnings then that it was going to blow out - because the thing is being rushed. Treasury said that whenever we rush things, like the Dunedin Hospital build, we end up with unexpected and often urgent cost escalations. Now, I'm incredibly cynical about the fact that this has somehow managed to radically cut the costs of a scheme that was being questioned for being too expensive and unnecessary when we already have two medical schools. And I worry very much that we have been presented the best case scenario to get us across the line on a National Party election promise that actually wasn't stacking up anymore. And that once we've invested in this and the shovels are in the ground and the costs start to blow out, we go - well, we're already pouring money into it, we simply will have to continue pouring money into it, which is how this always goes. So I hope that this comes in under budget, and if it does, I absolutely will apologize for what I'm saying right now, but I don't think it will. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Le combat le plus marquant ? Le KO le plus retentissant ? Le prospect qui vous a régalé ? 7 mois de MMA à l'UFC et en France avec beaucoup de highlights, d'espoirs et de déceptions. Quel est le bilan de cette mi-année avant d'attaquer la dernière ligne droite de 2025 avec Du Plessis vs Chimaev, l'UFC Paris et les bangers fréquents de fin d'année. Comment se porte le MMA français et ses prospects ? On vous répond dans le bilan de mi-année !

I'll tell you why I don't like the money we're spending on Sunny Kaushal and the Retail Crime Advisory Group: it's not a good deal. I haven't got a problem with Sunny Kaushal, but he was offering his ideas to the Government for free. If someone offers you something for free and you then decide to pay for it, that is a bad deal. And it's not bad coin we're paying either. Sunny Kaushal is earning $920 a day. Between March 1st and June 10th, which is 102 days, he earned $95,112. He can claim up to $920 dollars a day. Now my sums tell me that means he's been working and claiming seven days a week. For 102 days straight. Nearly $100,000 for three months work ain't bad. Then there's the personnel cost of $330,000 for, what Sunny told us yesterday, lawyers and policy work. That's work which can mostly be done in-house by Government departments and ministerial offices, who do this all the time, and have probably already done work on some of the ideas pitched by the retail crime fighting unit. Frankly, at the cost of $330,000 I think we can all see someone's taking the mickey with their bills. Now, if you are offered something for free, why would you pay for it? That's how the Government gravy train works. Good for Sunny Kaushal. If I was offered that much money by the Government for doing what I was already doing, I would take it. But I expected better from National, given that we are broke and they are supposed to be careful with money. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Erica Stanford is this Government's MVP. Once again, she is taking an inexplicably stupid thing in schools, ditching it, and going back to common sense. This is something close to my heart at the moment because I have to make a decision in the next six months or so about which school we send our son to. But I've basically already made the decision, and it will be the one school in the area that has single classes instead of open plan, modern learning spaces. It's the school his best friend from kindy is now going to. It's also the school another parent I know has just sent their child to. All of us are doing it for the same reason: we want to avoid open plan learning spaces. We know, like most parents know, that if you stick a hundred kids in a big room and tell them to pay attention to the teacher in front of them, they can't. They get distracted by the loud noises coming from the other kids over there. Why the Ministry of Education forced this in schools will probably baffle me for the rest of my life, because there is no logic to it. No one who has kids, or spends time with kids, can really believe kids can concentrate and learn with 100 voices chirping all the time. Which idiot came up with this? I'd love to know. I tell you what, the legacy of this Government could well be that it finally turns around our up-to-now decades long decline in education stats. That, along with the ban on phones in schools, and the hour a day of reading writing and maths, and the expectation that kids must pass existing standards, actually gives our kids a chance to learn as well as kids in any other developed country, like we used to. And if that is what happens, given how crucial education is to a country's success, Erica Stanford will remain as I see her: The MVP of this Government, if not of the decade. Or, of this generation. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Tipeee : https://fr.tipeee.com/tatami-connexion/Import Fight : https://import-fight.com/?srsltid=AfmBOopxmxtq5ijYNRacyh3JXNMXhb92u_rp_aZo3BMXsR-hLdqlLM9ECode promo : TATAMI10L'UFC 318 sera le témoin du combat de retraite de Dustin Poirier qui va affronter Max Holloway pour la ceinture BMF. Nous allons analyser le dernier volet d'une trilogie magnifique entre ces 2 combattants et qui aura lieu dans la nuit du 19 au 20 juillet au smoothie King centre de la nouvelle Orléans.Nous allons aussi profiter de cette épisode pour évoquer en bonus le main event de l'UFC 319 avec le combat opposant Dricus Du Plessis et Khamzat Chimaev.On va aborder leurs points forts et points faibles afin de déterminer quels seront les scénario les plus plausibles.Donnez-nous votre pronostic en commentaire afin de savoir si vous partagez notre visionBonne écoute !! Votre podcast préféré après les autres !

I'm as interested as anyone on this mystery about whether David Seymour is in trouble over the letter he sent to the UN. Whether the media reporting is right that the Prime Minister gave Seymour a telling off, or whether David was right that it was just a nice chat, or whether the media reporting is right that Winston is cross with David for sending the letter, or whether David's right that Winston is fine and is basically going to send the same letter again, or whether Winston is right when he says that's not true – I'm as interested as you are in what the truth is. But regardless of whether David is in trouble, he was right when he called the letter "presumptive, condescending, and wholly misplaced". I personally think he did us a favour giving the UN a slap-down for piping up on the Regulatory Standards Bill with their letter, which started the chain of correspondence. In particular, what the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples got wrong is his assertion that the bill fails to uphold indigenous rights guaranteed in the Treaty, including partnership. There is no partnership guarantee. It's not in the Treaty. It was a judge's comment in the mid 80's and was subsequently misinterpreted to mean partnership. He apparently also claims Māori have been excluded form consultation, which is again not true, because we've just had a full week of select committee hearings which included submission from Māori. Both of these facts could've been discovered with a simple Google search. Unfortunately for the UN this makes the case, again, for the thing being scaled back to what it was originally set up for: preventing WWIII. They should get out of everything else —climate change, indigenous rights, advocating for wealth taxes— because it's gone way beyond its original remit. It's too political and it's frankly not very good at any of it. Just look at the fact that it hasn't stopped climate change. So thank you to David Seymour for giving the UN a well overdue slap-down. Even if he wasn't really supposed to. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It's probably sensible, don't you think, for the Blues to consider leaving Eden Park for Mt Smart? It's not going to fix the attendance issues, though they seem to be hoping it will. In the consultation they're doing, the question they're asking fans is whether moving to Mt Smart will make them “more or less likely to attend Blues Super Rugby [mens] home games”. The fans might say yes, but they won't. Mt Smart is no better than Eden Park. It's not easier to get to there with public transport, it's about the same. If you drive you still have to find a park somewhere on the road, or on private property. You're still exposed to the elements in the stand. You're still paying for your beer and chips instead of getting them out of your kitchen. Maybe you could argue Mt Smart has a slight advantage in that you're coming straight off the motorway instead of fighting to get down Dominion Road, but I don't think that's enough of a difference to supercharge the crowd. Maybe you could argue that because the Warriors and Auckland FC are there, fans form a habit, so they go because they know how to go. But again, I don't think that's the problem. I think the problem is Super Rugby You're seeing poor turnout for Super Rugby regular season games around the country. 6000 are turning up for Moana Pasifika games. 13,000 for the Crusaders. 11,000 for the Blues. 11,000 in a 50,000 capacity stadium looks horrible. 11,000 in a 25,000 capacity stadium like Mt Smart looks less bad. But it's giving up, isn't it? The Blues leaving the home of rugby is basically accepting that this is how it is, that the crowd size of 11,000 is simply how it's going to be. What they should really be doing is finding smart ways to get us to come to Super Rugby games again. Find ways to get families along. Eden Park's kid zone with the bouncy castle is the right kind of thinking. Find ways to get us excited about the game of rugby. I'm sorry, but it's a boring product. Unless they do that, crowds that only fill quarter of a stadium are the future, in which case, move to Mt Smart. A smaller stadium will hide the empty seats better. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Winner of the week has got to be NZ First. In the latest Taxpayer's Union Curia poll, they are the third biggest party now, overtaking Act and the Greens. If you've been watching the polls lately that's not a surprise. This has been coming for a while. National has been up and down, Act has been pretty flat, but NZ First has just been heading up most of the year. There are a bunch of reasons for this. Winston is very statesman-like. He manages to disagree with his coalition partners without being quite as bratty as David Seymour can sometimes be. NZ First are choosing their battles. They stayed out of the pay equity kerfuffle, so they didn't cop the blowback. But mainly, it's because they're being refreshingly blunt. Shane Jones doesn't care if the lizard-lovers get upset that he wants to dig a mine where the lizards are. He just says it. Winston doesn't care if Grey Lynn and Aro Valley are offended that he wants transwomen kept out of women's sport. He just says it. He doesn't care if wool carpets into state houses is likely a bad financial decision. He got it done. This party is unashamedly appealing to a group of voters no one else really is, which is working class New Zealanders – people who see things simply and often more correctly than elites would care to imagine. It's the same thing playing out in the UK with the rise of the Reform Party. It's the same reason Trump is back in the White House. Of the three coalition parties NZ First is the only one hitting the same vein of voters. Now, we're still only talking about 10% and 10% doesn't a major party make. But it's only been headed in one direction lately, and that tells you something. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hasn't the AI and Wimbledon drama taught us exactly the same lesson we keep learning with technology and sport: it's great - if it doesn't disrupt the game. And if that is the lesson, why don't we learn it already? Wimbledon has not used AI properly. First problem was it missed a ball out. By a foot. The match got stopped and everyone waited four minutes. Yes, it was confirmed the AI got it wrong, so the match resumed. It turned out someone turned the AI off. Then we're at the quarter finals. AI calls a ball out. It's not. It's a metre inside the baseline. The match is stopped, the umpire calls the tech people, or whoever, and everyone waits. Yes, it's confirmed it was in and the match resumes. It turns out a ball boy was crossing the net at exactly the moment the ball was moving and the AI can't handle that. Players are cross. The waiting has broken the game's momentum. The crowd is cross. They've paid to watch the play, not sit around waiting for tech to be checked. On the other side of the world, here, we are again complaining about the TMO in last weekend's test involving itself too much. Even Wayne Barnes is complaining that the TMO is ruining the continuity of the game. Other sports have already learned this lesson. League has limited what the bunker can look at, football is thinking about limiting the VAR, ice hockey has limited video review and it's the same with volleyball. They all know what Wimbledon hasn't quite managed to do and rugby can't quite seem to accept, which is that technology is great. But don't let it disrupt the game. Don't let it keep fans waiting. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Let me tell you what Chris Hopkins is busy doing to the Covid Inquiry. Let me tell you, when he says that the Covid Inquiry is providing a platform for those who have conspiracy theorist views, he is trying to undermine it, and he's doing that. So it doesn't matter what the outcome of the inquiry is, people have already written it off as a nut job investigation. I suspect Chippy already knows that he's not going to come out of this flash. Neither is Jacinda. Neither is Ashley. Neither is Grant. Because we already know what went wrong. We can see that the lockdowns went too long. We know that the border was done badly. We know how much money was printed, to name just a few things that they did wrong. It's kind of rich of Chris Hipkins to complain that the terms of reference have been deliberately constructed to achieve a certain outcome, because that's coming from the guy whose government did exactly the same with the original Covid Inquiry. They set up such a limited set of terms of references that we had to set up a second inquiry after they lost the election just to get to the stuff that we actually care about, which is the mandates and the Auckland lockdown, and so on. They set up an inquiry, deliberately designed their words to only learn lessons, not assign blame when actually blame, or you can call it just taking responsibility, is exactly what a lot of us affected by all of this stuff would like to see. But what really bothers me about what Chris Hipkins is doing is the continual demonising of conspiracy theorists. Now, look, I don't love a conspiracy theorist. They're a bit nutty. I've had to sit through lectures about the world order hours on end, trying to be polite and pretending that you care because you love the person, right? A lot of these people went down the rabbit hole because Labour forced to the jab on them, so they went off to do their own research and they came back a bit strange. They shouldn't be excluded. They may be conspiracy theorists, but they're still our friends and our brothers and our uncles, even if they're a bit slightly different at the moment. Conspiracy theorists or not, they were as affected by these decisions as everyone else, therefore, they get a say too. And whatever, by the way, happened to “they are us”? Or does that only apply when it suits Labour? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On the Government considering minimum sentences, I would have no problem with this. I realise the judiciary aren't going to love it because it's tying their hands. But frankly, that is the point. Because some of the sentencing discounts that have been handed down by judges are frankly outrageous. The worst case that I've come across is the case of a rapist who attacked a woman in Albert Park in Auckland three years ago. He was given a discount of 77% by the judge for being young, for pleading guilty, for being good before that and for trying to be better after that. The defence lawyer had sought discounts totalling 110%. Discounting to that point feels like nothing more than trying to get as light of a sentence as possible. Now, I know the Government has already amended the law so judges are limited to handing down discounts of no more than 40%. But that doesn't fix the problem entirely because there are still ways to game that, for example by simply beginning with a low starting point, so that by the time you've discounted to the max of 40% you end up at the low point you want. We seem to think if you're in jail for murder that's a bit much and I don't think it is. A minimum sentence sets a bar below which even the craftiest judge can't fall. The problem with it is obviously the risk that it becomes the default sentence but if that starts happening then that can be dealt with. Also, this is not a novel idea. They do this in the U.S, in the UK, in Australia, in Singapore etc. And I see a case for us doing it too. If you're discounting three quarters of a sentence, you've got a problem. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If you listen to parenting experts, you'll hear the same thing time and time again about raising kids properly. They need love, but just as importantly, they need boundaries. They need to be told no, they need to be disciplined, and they need to learn what they can and can't do. And if you don't do that, you basically ruin their chances at success. Now, bear that in mind when you hear people like the Children's Commissioner arguing that kids should be off limit on citizen's arrests. At the moment the Government is proposing a law change to allow retailers, or security guards, or you and I, to hold a shoplifter until the cops can get there and take over. The Children's Commissioner is well-meaning because she just doesn't want kids hurt. These things can go badly, especially if you've got the worst case playing out like we've seen, which when you've got weapons involved with kids turning up with hammers and knives and so on to raid a store. But while she means well, she is wrong. Because a loophole like that will be exploited by adults. Gangs already use kids to commit their ram raids and their thefts because they know that kids get off more lightly than they would. If you make a rule that kids are allowed to escape but adults get held down, you only make it more likely that they send the kids in, thereby making it more likely that kids end up ruining their life. Which brings us back to the very start - kids need boundaries. Not just from parents. But also from the state. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Right, tell me what you think of this. There seems to be a bit of an effort underway at the moment to portray IRD as bad guys because they're chasing Kiwis overseas who owe money on their student loans. Now, tell me if you think that we should let either of these two off the hook on the money that they owe. The first is a pilot who moved to Australia 10 years ago. He now owes IRD $170,000. That is his original loan, plus basically mostly interest. He says he moved there for a pilot job in 2014, did it for six years, lost it during COVID, had to take a low-paying job in a storage warehouse. He's a pilot again, but this loan is so big, he doesn't know if he's ever gonna be able to pay it back. Should we let him off his debt? Or do you, like me, look at what a regional commercial pilot in Australia can earn, which is over $100,000 and possibly even closer to $200,000 Australian dollars, and think, he can probably afford to start paying back that debt. The second is a woman who has a debt of $70,000. Now, she moved to the United States 20 years ago. She wants to come back now to see her sick mom, but she can't because she's worried that she's gonna be arrested at the border. Should we wipe her debt? So she can come home and see her sick mom? Or do you like me, think that's entirely her decision. She can come back and see her sick mom. Ain't nobody stopping her doing that. And maybe when she gets here, we'll have a little chat about how she can start to make some repayments on that debt. Or she can carry on like she is, which is clearly valuing her money over her mom. Not coming back. And by the way, arrests over the border only happen to the worst offenders who've who've ignored all attempts by IRD to sort out the debt. Now, don't think I'm callous, right? I do feel sorry for both of these people and everybody else like them, because I imagine it's a horrible situation to be in, to allow your debt to get that out of hand. But that is not an excuse not to pay it back. IRD is, from what I can tell, pretty reasonable here. So much so that that woman's $70,000 debt has now been reduced to only $15,000 so it just covers the original debt in the end. The penalties have been wiped. This is them coming to the party to try to help. Sorry, the free ride is over, the repayments need to start. New Zealand is broke, we actually need this money back. I applaud IRD for going hard on this, and so far, I'm completely unmoved by any attempts to paint them as bad guys. I am yet to come across a single case where I think that IRD is being unfair, asking for the student loan to be repaid. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It's Thursday and that means it's time to catch up on politics with The Times Picayune/New Orleans Advocate's editorial director and columnist, Stephanie Grace. Today she tells us about State Sen. Royce Duplesis' decision to join the New Orleans mayoral race, and goes over Gov. Landry's recent line item vetoes. Café Reconcile, a modern soul food cafe tucked away in Central City, is a safe space for at-risk youth to learn culinary and life skills. As it celebrates 25 years in business, the restaurant is rebranding, and has updated its mission and core value statement. Caitlin Scanlan, chief development officer for Reconcile New Orleans, tells us moreLast month, the Historic New Orleans Collection opened their latest exhibition, “The Trail The Blazed.” The exhibit gives viewers insight into the local civil rights movement through a multimedia experience – letting them hear the voices and music of the era straight from those on the front lines. Eric Seiferth curated this exhibit, and joins us with the details.___Today's episode of Louisiana Considered was hosted by Bob Pavlovich. Our managing producer is Alana Schreiber. We get production support from Garrett Pittman and our assistant producer Aubry Procell.You can listen to Louisiana Considered Monday through Friday at noon and 7 p.m. It's available on Spotify, the NPR App and wherever you get your podcasts. Louisiana Considered wants to hear from you!  Please fill out our pitch line to let us know what kinds of story ideas you have for our show. And while you're at it, fill out our listener survey! We want to keep bringing you the kinds of conversations you'd like to listen to.Louisiana Considered is made possible with support from our listeners. Thank you!

This is gonna sound harsh and I know it - but I think women like Rachel Reeves need to stop crying in public.This is the biggest news that is in the UK at the moment. The Chancellor, who's basically the equivalent of our Nicola Willis, started crying in Parliament. Now I feel really sorry for her, cause it looks like she is going to probably end up taking the fall for a man's incompetence because Keir Starmer, her Prime Minister, is weak and is giving into a rebellion and has forced a U-turn on her, thereby undermining her fiscal plans. And then after all of that, after doing all of that to her and humiliating her in public, what then happened in Parliament is what sparked the tears. He was asked whether, after all of the humiliation he's put her through, he's going to keep her in the job, and he would not confirm that he would keep her in the job. And she's sitting directly behind him, the cameras capture it, her face crumbles and the tears start rolling - and you'd have to be heartless not to feel for the woman, because it is incredibly clear that she is trying so hard not to cry, but she cannot help it. But women have got to stop crying in public. If you cannot stop yourself crying in public because it is too much, get up, leave the room, do it privately. I was reading Jacinda's book last night, again - I mean, talk about crying, there's another crier - and in it, she tells the story of being pregnant and talking to a successful corporate woman at a function. And she couldn't find a word that she was looking for and she said to the woman, "Oh, baby brain." And then she laughed, but the woman didn't laugh. The woman looked at her with a stern face and said to her, "You can never say that." And the reason is obvious - because if she says that in public, Jacinda Ardern's opponents would have seized on it, but also people in general would have seized on it as an example that women cannot do significant jobs while being pregnant and being mums. And the same is unfortunately true for Rachel Reeves. There will be people who will seize on this as an example that women cannot handle significant and stressful jobs because women are inherently more emotional. Now, I realize that what I'm saying is controversial because we have been told time and time again by people like John Kirwan that we're not supposed to bottle things up and we are supposed to talk about it. But I think we've gone completely in the other direction. We are now at risk of oversharing everything that we're feeling. By all means, talk about it. Talk to the people closest to you. Cry all you like behind closed doors to them. But if you're gonna cry in public, leave the room - especially, for God's sake, if you're a woman in a big job because it reflects on all women. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This debate about Anna Mowbray and Ali Williams' helicopter has just got really, really silly in the last day. There is now a push for Auckland Council to ban private choppers in residential areas altogether when they next review the unitary plan for Auckland city, and at least 2 councillors now back that. And one of the councillors backing it is the councillor whose ward covers the Mowbray property. Now I'm sorry, but helicopters are a legitimate form of travel for people who can afford them. They are fast, they avoid traffic jams, and if that is what the Mowbray-Williams family want to use to make their lives easier so they can get from A to B as quickly as possible, all power to them. They can afford it. I feel sorry for the neighbours, I do. I have empathy. I wouldn't want to live next to a property with a chopper that was landing consistently, but nor would I want to live next to a property where the neighbour has a noisy motorbike. And yet - we're not banning noisy motorbikes, are we? Some noisy motorbikes, by the way, are as noisy as choppers. They can hit 116 decibels, which is pretty much exactly the same as the 118 decibels that you can get if you're standing right next to a chopper landing. And there is no ban on those noisy motorbikes, is there? There's no council limit on how many times your neighbour can use one of them, there's no council saying: "Oh, you can use it 10 times a month, but that's it, no more." So why are we doing the same with the chopper? I can't help but feel that some of this anti-chopper sentiment is coming from an anti-rich person place, and we need to get over that. Cause we are lucky, actually, that the Mowbrays have chosen to live in New Zealand. These people are gangster rich, they can live anywhere in the world, and yet they're living here in New Zealand. They're living in Auckland, they're providing work for the people who work in their household, they are paying their mega-dollar taxes into our country, they are pumping money into this economy. Let's not make it harder for people like that. Let's not make it easier for people like that to leave this country by getting weird about helicopters. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

From today, Wegovy is available on our shelves so you can get skinny like Oprah, if you want. But it'll cost you - $500 per month. Which is unaffordable for most people, prompting a debate over whether the Government should fund it to reduce obesity and safe money on obesity-related illnesses and injuries. Now on principle, this is the kind of thing I'm a fan of - a bit of money upfront to save lots of money later. But unfortunately, as it stands, this wouldn't be an example of saving money. If we were funding Wegovy like they do in the UK, we'd fund it for people with a BMI over 30. In New Zealand, that is a staggering 1.5 million adults, apparently. If every one of those adults cost $500 per month, that would cost $7.5 billion per year - but it would only save $2 billion a year in obesity-related healthcare costs. Now, that's only measuring health costs directly related to obesity. As we know, carrying too much weight makes you prone to illness, which means you take more days off work, making you less productive. So you could also add in the cost of lost productivity across the workforce. That's around $8 billion, so that takes the cost of obesity to $9.5 billion. But measuring productivity is a guessing game - so you're paying $7.5 billion to maybe save $9.5 billion. Which isn't enough of a saving to take that punt on. And then you need to factor in that for a lot of people, Wegovy only works while you're on it. When you're off it, you'll start putting the weight back on. So you might fund it for a lot of people, only to end up paying the cost of obesity-related illnesses later on. Having said that, that's not measuring the cost of a life. We fund a lot of drugs just to keep people alive, so maybe we should fund this to keep people alive. The good news is - Wegovy comes off its patent in January. Which means copy-cats will be made for much, much cheaper. Which might change the maths, but for now, if you're giving it to everyone who might need it, the cost would simply be too much to justify. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Anyone out there, hands up, who doesn't agree with the Justice Minister's plan to introduce harsher punishments for people who assault first responders? I feel like this is a complete no-brainer. I mean, there are some out there who would argue that no assault is acceptable at all and that if you create two tiers of punishment where you've got the police officers on one level and then the normal humans on another - what you're saying is that some assaults are more acceptable than others. And that's a fair argument to make, but I think reality has a role to play here, and the reality is different, isn't it? The reality is you and I, regular citizens, can just walk away if we see something happening, if we see there's somebody who needs a bit of help, but we can see it's not safe - we can just keep on going. First responders can't. For police and ambo workers in the fire service, it is their job to go into those situations that are often quite risky because people are upset or people have been substance abusing or whatever. And having a different level of offense for them is an acknowledgement, I think, that they face greater risk, so they should have greater protection. Now, obviously, just attaching a higher punishment to it doesn't mean it's necessarily going to deter someone from doing something, especially if they're off their face and they're making bad decisions. But I would be surprised if it doesn't have an effect over time. As the punishments start coming in, I suspect it will have an impact - the impact of making first offenders a no go. I find it hard to believe that anybody would assault an ambulance worker, because, you know, is there anybody who was there to help you more than an ambulance worker? They're not there to arrest you. They're just there to help you. But it happens. At the last count, there were 12 assaults on ambulance workers every single week, and that was before COVID. So probably like everything since then, I imagine the numbers would have gone up. But here's the question I have about this, right? This is not a new idea. From what I can see, this idea was first pitched by New Zealand First seven years ago. It got to a second reading, never went any further. Same as with the coward's punch, which has just been announced today after being first pitched seven years ago. On the face of it, I would say a it's good idea. So why does it take so long for good ideas to become law? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There's a strong chance that this has been Moana Pasifika's best and last season in super rugby. Do you want them to have another one? And if so, how much should the taxpayer put in to save it? Would you pay $7million? Because that's apparently what they're short. The Whānau Ora money is gone and it's understood that Sky is pulling its sponsorship of half a million dollars a year. World rugby also wants to either reduce or completely cut the money it puts in. That's around $1.7million a year. So, for a club that costs about 12 m a year to run, it is short around $7million. My answer to the first question I asked you … is yes. Moana Pasifika should be saved. There is a very good reason to have a super ruby team dedicated to giving professional opportunities to Tongan and Samoan rugby players. They were also one of the best success stories of the season. My answer to the second question is that the taxpayer should pay nothing. I can almost guarantee there will be a request for taxpayer help, but this is not a taxpayer problem. This is a rugby problem. This is one for NZ rugby and rugby Australia to fix. They are the ones who own the Super Rugby competition, and the ones who make money off the broadcast deal from it. I hope they can sort it out though because in a rugby competition that failed to excite people during the regular season, Moana Pasifika were one of the better stories. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How disappointing is the revelation that Whānau Ora money has been used to fund the Moana Pasifika rugby team? How disappointing is that? And this is not a criticism of the team. I mean, the team has been one of the rockstar stories of the Super Rugby season. This is about the funding. This is the kind of revelation, I reckon, that does huge damage to public confidence and Government use of taxpayer money. Because this is money that, to our minds, is supposed to be going to some of the most vulnerable people, to helping Māori and Pasifika families with things like health, medical appointments, baby jabs, education, housing, that kind of thing. But instead, we find out it's been going to fund a rugby team for elite athletes - and this has been going on for at least 2 years. One of the outfits that's contracted to spend final order funds, Pacifica Medical Association Group - we're going to call them PMA - has been giving $770,000 a year to Moana Pasifika. Now, if they do it again this year - we haven't got the financials - but if they do it again at the same level, it will total $2.3 million. That's a lot of money. Now, credit where credit is due, credit to the new Whānau Ora minister or to his department. Either of which appears to have already stopped this in its tracks. They've taken the contract off PMA, given it to a new outfit - and that outfit has to abide by a much tighter set of measurements around the spending and the money and a bit more clarity about whether they're getting their bang bang for their buck when they spend the dollars. But once again, even though it has been stopped - and credit where credit is due - taxpayer money has been wasted. And the lesson here, if there is a lesson, is that it is absolutely fine to hand out taxpayer money to a third party. But if you do that, there have got to be rules and there has got to be supervision. Otherwise, money that we all think is going to families who need it could instead be propping up a rugby team. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Have you caught up on the drama between the academics and David Seymour? Can I just respectfully suggest that the academics need to harden up? They are upset because David Seymour has published a 'Victim of the Day' on social media, and he seems to be doing it reasonably regularly. It's featuring academics who are upset about the Regulatory Standards Bill - and then it's mocking them for that. Now, they're not happy. They're accusing him of breaching the Cabinet Manual. They say that his posts are unethical, unprofessional, potentially dangerous to those who are targeted, and that he's trying to silence them. Thereby proving his point that they really are victims, aren't they? Now, I'm surprised at how thin-skinned these academics are. Let's be honest about it, none of us like to be skewered. It can sting. But it kind of comes with the territory, doesn't it? If you are in public, and especially if you choose to put yourself in public - which these academics are doing by choosing to, for example, pen opinion pieces criticizing the bill - then they are inviting a response, and they cannot dictate what that response is. And actually, I could be wrong, but what I've seen doesn't seem that harsh. It just seems like a right of reply, but tongue in cheek. Context is important here as well, because this David versus academic spat has actually been going on a fair bit. David Seymour, in my personal opinion, has been given a bit of a rough time by some academics - one in particular who I think is the worst offender. She has, in the past, said that she hopes he doesn't have kids, and then called his Government a fascist white supremacist Government, which certainly makes his response look adult. Now, if academics - and I'm not saying it's the same academics here by any stretch - but collectively, if they want to hand it out, they have to also be prepared to suck it up. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I can see that this idea of forcing rate caps on councils is taking off. So can I just express my concerns about this early on? I personally love the idea of stopping councils from continually jacking up what they charge us, but I worry that this is not going to fix the situation, because it's not the actual problem, is it? The actual problem is that councils spend our money on stupid stuff. A la, the light up toilets in Wellington even when they've got no money. Wellington has got no money, but they keep on doing this stuff. So even if you stop them having much money because you put on a rate cap, they will continue to spend the money on the wrong things. A la, Wellington. So what will then happen if you put the rate cap on - is that after years and years and years and years of deferred capital expenditure, the pipes will break down cause Wellington hasn't spent money on them, and the roads will be in disrepair because Wellington hasn't spent money on them, and the buildings will need earthquake upgrades cause Wellington hasn't spent money on them. And then they will say - oh, look at all the trouble we've got. We need more money. And then some Government run by somebody like Grant Robertson will go - yeah, cool, we'll lift the rate cap. And they'll just make up for lost ground and go hell for leather and jack it up. Or what they'll do is for years and years and years and years, they will just run everything on the credit card and then they'll say - oh look, it's a debt crisis. We've got to pay back our debt, we need more money. And some Government run by somebody like Grant Robertson will go - oh yeah, that's cool. Let's lift the rate cap, and then off they go. And they'll just make up for lost ground. See what I mean? It'll make you feel good about it in the short term, but they will get you eventually, because the problem is that they aren't spending money properly - and that is actually what we need to fix here. Now, I don't know how. I think getting rid of some of our councils by canning the regional councils or canning the district councils or canning the local councils or the city councils may help limit the costs. But I'm not sure. Ultimately, I think we just need smarter people on council - and we need to hold their feet to the fire. But as long as you have numpties and council officials who are shady - and you're not watching them - a rate cap will only delay the problem. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New All Black flanker Du Plessis Kirifi almost gave up on his All Blacks dream but decided at the start of this year to give it one more big shot. Kirifi's father Jack played flanker for Auckland club Ponsonby for years and made a wider Manu Samoa squad in the 1980s. He spoke to RNZ rugby reporter Joe Porter about what it means for his son to finally achieve his All Blacks dream and how he reacted when Du Plessis gave him the good news.

Well, US certainly ramped things up over the weekend, didn't it? And if you feel like this is an incredibly serious situation right now, you're not wrong, because there are very few examples - if any - of the US involving itself in the Middle East or surrounding areas and making things better. For the most part, it just ends up backfiring or ending badly. I mean, there are some really obvious ways with regards to Iran that this could go badly. First of all - if Iran wasn't making a nuclear weapon, and I have my doubts about that, but if they really weren't, then this may convince them that they really need to get on and make that nuclear weapon because there is only one way to ensure that you don't get bombed by the US, and that is to have a nuclear weapon. This could also incentivize other countries like Russia to give them a nuclear weapon, which has been a threat from Russia in the last few days. This could spiral into some sort of instability in the country if there's a regime change in Iran that is worse than the current one, and that's always possible and often is the case. This could create instability in other parts of the world. If the US gets involved more deeply in Iran and ties itself up there, other countries will have a look at it, see the US is distracted and take their chances in another part of the world. All of that is absolutely fair to be worried about. However, I would like to caution us all against thinking that Iran is some sort of an innocent victim here, which I think is something that we tend to do in this country. We don't like the US meddling. We can see from a distance how bad that is. So we see the US as an aggressor, meddling in another country, and then we feel sorry for that country, for the US coming and bullying them. Do not feel sorry for Iran. Iran are not good guys here. I personally think you'd have to be naïve to believe that they weren't working on a nuke. They've got their facilities underground, for God's sake. What do you think that's for? And they are motivated to have a nuke, as I said before, to avoid exactly this happening with the US bombing them.So they've got the motivation, circumstantially it looks like they were up to something, right? And they are by the way, remember, the ones who supported and funded Hamas, who started this war with Israel in the first place on October 7, 2023. So they are not good guys at all. Now, they probably had this coming actually. The only thing that we can hope for right now is that it ends with this and to be honest, it's probably a long shot. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

durée : 00:58:45 - Le Cours de l'histoire - par : Xavier Mauduit, Maïwenn Guiziou - Des artefacts de l'âge du Bronze à l'histoire de Léopoldine Hugo, en passant par les tableaux de Duplessis, plusieurs musées français proposent une plongée estivale dans les trésors de leurs réserves.  - réalisation : Thomas Beau

You know what I'm not going to miss? The census. If there anything that showed how bad Governments can be at embracing technology, it was the census. At a time when Governments collect huge amounts of electronic data about us, it seemed ridiculous that they were also asking us to fill out a paper form and send it in. They already know what we're earning, the IRD has that. They already know how many babies are being born and how many of us are dying and how many of us getting hitched - Births, Deaths and Marriages has that. They already know how many of us are leaving the country and coming into the country, that's collected too. They know how many one, two or three bedroom houses there are, that's all collected already. And yet - they were asking us to tell them that all again on the census form. Which made the exercise a giant waste of money. The last one cost $325 million and the next one was going to cost $400 million. Now I accept that there is information we will lose. Because as far as I know, no Government department collects information on how many languages you speak or what your sexuality is or what your first language is or how many people live in your house. So yes, by scrapping the census, we will end up with an incomplete set of data. But we already have an incomplete set of data because of the huge numbers of us that didn't fill it in. In 2018, we didn't count one in six Kiwis. That's not complete at all. So either way, we won't know anything. Except one way was going to cost us $400 million. Scrapping the census was way overdue. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I'll tell you what I'm gonna be watching with some interest in the next few weeks - that employment bill that ACT has just introduced to Parliament that would make it a lot easier for employers to fire staff who earn more than $180,000 because those high earning staff would not be able to take personal grievance cases for justified dismissal. Now, I say high earning with air quotes, because while yes, these people do earn a lot more than the average wage, I don't think that they earn so much that they can be considered, I don't know, rich pricks and treated so callously as to simply fire them without them having any recourse. Many of these people, I think, will probably be raising families - because you don't earn $180,000 plus if you're in your early 20s, do you? These are people who are in management, maybe even in upper management, and I'd imagine that they've got families to feed and families to look after, so I imagine these people would be amongst the most stressed if they could just lose their jobs all of a sudden. I think ACT is taking something of a political gamble here, because I would have thought that this is a case of ACT screwing over some of its own voters. Because remember, ACT does well in well-heeled places like Epsom, which is where people earning more than $180,000 a year live. Now, I'm not sure what's made ACT feel like they have to do this, because it's not as if there has been this huge public debate about how people on $180,000 plus have been terrible employees who need to have their employment rights stripped. And if anything, this is just going to provide work for lawyers because people on this kind of money will have the means, and if they have families to feed, the motivation as well, to litigate, and I suspect that they will. So I'm very keen to see if ACT actually goes through with this part of its plan, because from where I'm sitting, this just looks like a really weird idea with more downsides than upsides. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This morning, the Prime Minister was asked about the 2000 public servants that had lost their jobs. 2000 are out but 64,000 remain. Chris Luxon saw nothing wrong with that. That right there is part of the reason why this Government is polling so poorly, because it's all talk, isn't it, bugger all action. Now I'm sorry. I realize this is a lot to start the week with - we're starting strident. I don't mean to continue like that - but were you as surprised as I was to hear that we've only cut 2000 public servants? And were you even more surprised that the Prime Minister's explanation is no more than a verbal shrug? This, I think, will be profoundly disappointing to a lot of people who expected this Government to get public spending under control. And cutting public servants is part of getting that spending under control. There is no reason why we have as many public servants as we have today. 63,000 - there is no reason why we have more than double the 30,000 public servants that we had in 2001. Our population hasn't doubled since 2001. It's gone up about 37 percent. If you adjust accordingly, then we should have 41,000 public servants, not 63,000 public servants. Now, I would have expected that the Prime Minister would have a better explanation than simply saying - at least it's not as bad as Labour. Well, maybe so, but I hoped for better. I hoped for a Government that was gonna actually turn this around. Certainly more than a Government that just feels like it's actually Labour dressed in blue clothing. And isn't this just the latest example of talk from this Government that is not being matched by action? They promised to cut spending every year, and they spend more than Grant Robertson. They promise to get on top of debt every year, and they add more to the debt. They promise to stop the race-based policies - and we just keep finding them. They keep waving them through unless we bust them at it. I think this, in part, answers the question that we were asking last week, which is why is it that 3 polls in a row were so tight that it wasn't actually clear if this Government would win an election if an election was held today. This is why they're not brave enough. They should be braver. In fact, if they were braver, they might be more popular. It's worth remembering that for all the hard decisions that were taken by the 4th Labour Government, which is definitely the most transformational that we can think of, right? For all those tough decisions taken in the first 3 years, they actually came back with a bigger majority in 1987. So maybe, you get rewarded for doing what you say you'll do, tough as it may be, rather than just talking tough and then doing very little. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Let me tell you about my colleague Kylie's reaction to that Air India plane crash last night. She was in bed. She was playing on her phone as you do, and the news came in at about 9 o'clock. Immediately, she looked, she suspected it, looked up what kind of plane it was, exactly as she thought: a Boeing. Then she immediately looked up what plane her 12-year-old daughter is on to Samoa this Sunday —exactly as she expected, a Boeing— and she freaked out. Now fortunately for her, she's got a partner with common sense, and actually, she herself is reasonably rational, so she's not going to be pulling her daughter off that flight. But she is still feeling incredibly uncomfortable about it. And look, I don't blame her for that. I would bet that she's not alone in reacting like this. And just assuming this is a Boeing problem. Truth is, we don't actually know that this is a Boeing problem. Yes, it was a Boeing plane, but there is a very, very good chance that this is actually a pilot problem because it looks like the pilot may not have extended the wing flaps. But the trouble for Boeing is it does not have the same benefit of the doubt that a planemaker would normally have with a crash like this because of all of the problems that Boeing has already had in the last 10 years. Never mind the fact that the problems have been with the 737 narrow-body planes, and this is a 787, which is completely different. Never mind that. Boeing shares fell immediately, and they have stayed down. Now, I would say that speed is of the essence here for the people who are doing the investigation with getting those answers out. These investigators, I understand, have about 30 days under international expectations to issue the preliminary findings, but they should, all things going well, have answers out of that flight data, the flight data recorders within days, if not hours of the crash. And then I think the sooner that the public are told what has happened, the better for Boeing's sake. And Boeing will be hoping like hell that the answers clear the plane and unfortunately blame the pilot.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I don't enjoy saying what I'm about to say because personally I quite like Neil Quigley, but I think that he needs to quit as the chair of the Reserve Bank - simply because I do not think that we can ever trust a single word that comes out of that man's mouth again as the chair. He has been busted telling not just one, but quite a lot of fibs about Adrian Orr's resignation. So for a start, on the day that Adrian Orr quit, you'll recall Neil Quigley was the one who held the press conference. At the time he said Adrian's resignation was a personal decision. That is clearly not true. Adrian, we now find out, packed a sad, and quit over funding. Neil Quigley also said that there was nothing that the Government had said in the days before that that caused Adrian to quit. Not true. Adrian and Nicola, and actually Neil himself, had a meeting about the funding 9 days before the resignation. Neil Quigley was also asked whether there were any policy conduct or performance issues which are at the centre of this resignation. He said there are no issues of that type that are behind this resignation. Once again, not true. He was asked what happened because: "Reserve Bank governors don't just up and resign" and he said: "There is a time when you think having achieved what you wanted to achieve, that's enough". Once again, not true. That's not why Adrian quit. Adrian quit because he packed a tantrum because he didn't get enough money. Now, I do not know why Neil Quigley decided that he needed to tell porkies in order to defend Adrian Orr. I mean, I get the feeling that he has spent a great deal of his time, unfortunately for him, trying to manage the tantrums of our former toddler governor, and perhaps he just got into a little bit of a pattern of butt covering for the guy. He has suggested that he was constrained in what he could say by Orr's exit agreement. But in that case, you simply say, look, I can't say much because it's an employment agreement. And I think we all will understand that because we're all employees or employers, and we're all constrained by the same law, so we get it. But he didn't choose to do that, did he? He chose to stand there and fib to us, and that means that next time he's up answering some tough questions, I don't know if we're going to trust him, are we? Already, unfortunately for Neil, he's got quite a big black mark against him. He was part of the money printing team with Adrian Orr that stuffed up the economy, and some already think that that is enough reason to call for him to quit. Never mind the fact that he has now been busted telling straight out porkies in public. So if I was Neil Quigley, he's got two options. He can hang in there and see how it goes, or he can quit while he's still ahead - and I would do the latter. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Lady Jen Du Plessis discusses the crucial differences between running a practice and a business, emphasizing the value of professional expertise. She illustrates these points through real-life examples from the mortgage industry and highlights the importance of elevating your business to an elite level. The episode also touches on the impact of AI, social media, and strategies for positioning yourself as a high-value professional. _______________________ Connect with Lady Jen Connect and Schedule a Strategy call at ⁠⁠⁠https://supportfromjen.com/⁠⁠⁠ YouTube: ⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@LadyJenDuPlessis⁠⁠⁠ Free Gifts: ⁠⁠⁠https://jenduplessis.com/gifts/⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of Mortgage Lending Mastery, Lady Jen Du Plessis discusses the important difference between mindset and heartset in the mortgage industry. Sharing personal anecdotes and strategies, she explains the transition from mechanical operations to a more heart-centered approach in both business and personal life. Learn actionable steps to align core values with business practices for a more fulfilling and successful career. _______________________ Connect with Lady Jen Connect and Schedule a Strategy call at ⁠⁠https://supportfromjen.com/⁠⁠ YouTube: ⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@LadyJenDuPlessis⁠⁠ Free Gifts: ⁠⁠https://jenduplessis.com/gifts/⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of Mortgage Lending Mastery, host Lady Jen Du Plessis shares insights on applying the CPCC (Clues, Patterns, Conversations, Choices) framework to elevate mortgage practices and personal relationships. Drawing from personal experiences and the teachings, Lady Jen offers practical advice on identifying and addressing behavioral patterns to make informed decisions. Tune in to discover actionable strategies for improving both your professional and personal life. _______________________ Connect with Lady Jen Connect and Schedule a Strategy call at ⁠https://supportfromjen.com/⁠ YouTube: ⁠https://www.youtube.com/@LadyJenDuPlessis⁠ Free Gifts: ⁠https://jenduplessis.com/gifts/⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of Mortgage Lending Mastery, Lady Jen Du Plessis explores the concept of 'sitting back vs leaning in' to your business. She discusses the importance of taking proactive actions, moving the needle daily, and setting clear expectations to avoid business stagnation. Tune in for practical strategies and insights to help you become a master in your mortgage practice. _______________________ Connect with Lady Jen Connect and Schedule a Strategy call at https://supportfromjen.com/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@LadyJenDuPlessis Free Gifts: https://jenduplessis.com/gifts/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of Mortgage Lending Mastery, Lady Jen Du Plessis shares her insights on shifting mindset from 'have to' to 'get to' and finally to 'choose to'. She discusses how this shift can help business owners achieve harmony between their professional and personal lives. A story about transforming a client's baking business highlights the benefits of embracing the 'choose to' mindset. _______________________ Connect with Lady Jen Connect and Schedule a Strategy call at https://supportfromjen.com/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@LadyJenDuPlessis Free Gifts: https://jenduplessis.com/gifts/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices