 There's a lot of people who talk about national being a right-wing party. I don't see national as being a right-wing party. I don't think they've ever been a right-wing party. They're very much, you can say they're conservative party, but it doesn't mean right-wing. And they're conservative in that they very much support the status quo. So they don't do any radical changes. The last radical changes they did was the cancellation of bringing in the Employment Contracts Act and doing all of those changes that happened in the 90s, which was a continuation from what Labour did in the 80s. But they generally are stable managers of the economy. And so I don't see them as being right-wing. They're more a centrist. And if you look at under John Key, there's no way he was right-wing. He was very much left of centre. And that's one of the great achievements of Helen Clark that people never talk about, is that she managed to move the political dial from the right and from the centre to the left of centre. And National moved that dial with it. So they're not right-wing at all. And when people talk about how can National attract the right-wing voters that they've lost, well, they shouldn't be attracting those people. They should leave those people to the ACT Party to hoover up because MMP is about governments of coalitions. And under John Key, National destroyed their coalition partners and eventually that came unstuck on them when they lost the 2017 election to second place getter Labour. So I think that they should continue to straddle the centre, be the party of the status quo, and leave the radical agenda and the right-wing agenda to the ACT Party. And you don't have to get up to being 45% and dominating everybody. You could have two parties, one at, say, 35% and another one at, say, 15% and you've got a government. No, I don't believe that National asked centre-right. I believe that they're actually centre-left. What they need to be is more centre. Leave the right and the radical right to the ACT Party and grow the ACT Party because two parties of a reasonable size is better than one large party being a complete broad church. Otherwise you end up with the problem that we had in the National Party in the last two years where they've encouraged their, what I call the wet-wing, which are very liberal in their outlook on absolutely everything. They're always promoting things like gay marriage and gay conversion theory. Well, these things don't matter to 95% of the population. National needs to concentrate on governing for 95% of the population, not the 5% of single-issue rowdies that raise their head whenever they feel aggrieved about something. Well, some of them haven't been enacted yet, but they're likely to be enacted before the next election. The first thing would be the Three Waters thing, which is basically the marification of our water assets and basically handing over 50% of those assets to the control of Maori, abrogating the control of councils and abrogating democracy at the same time. The other thing that I would repeal would be Labour's removal of the right for local councils to hold referenda on particular items. It was an appalling breach of democracy and trust, passing that in the dead of the night under urgency. And there's a couple of other reforms that need to be undone as well. The Resource Management Act reforms that Labour are bringing in are going to make things actually worse. And their health reforms are just going to waste half a billion dollars on shifting the deck chairs on the Titanic. So there's a lot of things I think that what Judith Collins needs to do is start a spreadsheet and a list of things that should be repealed and she should create an omnibus bill that can be brought in in the first 100 days of taking over and just remove all of these legisly blockages that the Labour Party has brought in. Well, Winston's got a choice. He's sitting at about 4% in the latest UMR poll. He hasn't campaigned on anything at all. I think that he'll be able to campaign and lead up to the election on the basis that, do you miss the handbrake now? And I think there's a large chunk of Labour voters that would probably see that having someone sensible and an elder statesman there to temper the edges of the more radical elements in society on the left and the right might be a good thing. If he went with Labour again, that would be the end of New Zealand first. No one would ever vote for them again on the basis that he always goes with Labour. But people forget that the first time when Winston Peters had a chance to go into coalition, he went into coalition with National. Now, what National did to Winston Peters during that coalition was appalling. And if you know the people who were involved and know the backstory and you'll realise that what was sold to us via the media and via Jenny Shipley was starkly different from what actually happened in reality. And that is the underlying reason why Winston Peters has basically sought U2 against various people in the National Party ever since that day. Now, all of those people, every single one of them who were involved during that time and all the people he's had fights with in the courts, people like David Carter, Nick Smith, etc., they're all gone now from National. And so it's a completely different party. It's led now by someone whose word is a bond. And Winston can work with that. And whenever he signs a deal, he sticks with the deal. And so I think there is a distinct possibility, which is greater than a 50-50 possibility that he'd go with National. Well, there's a large chunk of the population that are like that. And usually they're died-in-the-wall National Party people who have not bothered to educate themselves as to the background behind these things. They haven't bothered to talk to Winston or some of the other players behind the scenes. They're not as deeply involved in politics. They just trot out the party lines. And frankly, it's rather lame for them to do that and to just blindly say, no, don't trust Winston. Well, that's fine. They can not trust Winston. But there will always be around five or six or seven percent of people. They actually will trust him. And one thing about Winston Peters is he's very, very consistent. And consistency is a rare thing in politics these days. And it's something that can be banked on. And I think he will make a play on that. Well, you never know under MMP, because every politician can be made a liar in about five seconds flat during negotiations. But that's the most logical thing that would happen. You'd have the right being supported by ACT. You would have the center being supported by National. And then you would have what I call New Zealand First and Nationalist Party. And they can do some things that are quite Muldoon-ist in outlook. But on the other side, they can be quite dry and conservative, especially on social issues. So I think those three would provide quite a stable government.