Am I alone in resenting and deploring the constant attempts by KFC to use their advertising budget to suggest that they are somehow the mainstay of our national game, and that rugby cannot be enjoyed or supported except by those who partake of their fat-ridden and sugar and salt-laden “fast” food?

The adverse health effects of eating KFC, and the physical demands made by playing rugby at a high level, make for uncomfortable bedfellows, to say the least. Have KFC and their advertisers no shame?

“The Power of the Dog” may have been difficult viewing for some viewers (me included) who may have had some trouble in working out what it was really about. But, with some help from reviewers, I can now see that it was a thoughtful exploration of what it means to be masculine in the modern world.

Such a reappraisal is long overdue. We have lived too long with a concept of masculinity that inflates the value of “macho” attitudes and has produced in consequence an unacceptable rate of family violence, and the disrespect and doing down of women. It is time that we recognised that the proper role of the male in society is to love and cherish, to provide and protect, and to ensure that the world our children grow up into is one that allows and encourages them to fulfil their best selves whatever their gender or lack of it.

It can come as no surprise that the Act party has received large donations from a range of rich-listers; they no doubt see their generosity as a worthwhile investment in protecting their riches.

But, can you imagine the humiliation of being revealed (as some have been) as being able to afford only $50 million, whereas others have donated $100 million – are the skinflints really entitled to join the ranks of rich-listers if they are such curmudgeons?

Whose assessment of Putin was more accurate? Joe Biden said “Putin is a killer.” Donald Trump described him as “a genius” and “very savvy”.

In a somewhat pretentiously titled “State of the Nation” speech, Christopher Luxon yesterday offered a few thoughts (if one is being generous) to a small gathering of National party faithful. Even Claire Trevett in the Herald reported that the speech had failed to make any waves.

The speech, no doubt written for him by an underling, was nevertheless noteworthy for a number of reasons. It underlined his lack of any new or ground-breaking ideas, and also his serious limitations as a political leader.

The first limitation was his mode of delivery. The speech was delivered in a weak and conversational tone. His voice lacked any authority, conviction or inspiration. Anything less like a speech from a potential leader of the country and designed to enthuse and inspire cannot be imagined.

The content was similarly devoid of any “wow” factor. What we (or they – his supporters) got was a pallid re-hash of traditional National policy – and that means only one thing. Any National leader short of something meaningful to say will reach for the file titled “Tax Cuts”; but, as is always the case, uttering the phrase is the easy bit – there was then no hint of what would need to be cut, by way of public services, in order to finance the proposed gift to the assembled fat cats.

Such is the parlous state (not to say, absence) of National party policy, however, that Luxon was no doubt satisfied with the restrained ripple of applause he received as he wrapped up his tour de non-force. We can’t say we haven’t been warned – if that was his vision of the state of the nation, let’s get another vision and a different visionary.