E Te Tameiti


Day three of the challenge to match Inventory 2 at Keeping Stock and Adam Smith at Inquiring Mind in posting a song each day as a contribution to New Zealand Music Month.

Since it’s Sunday, I’ve chosen E Te Tameiti, a prayer by John Rowles and the Paki Paki Bilingual Cultural Goup.


Inquiring Mind gives us 31 reasons to love NZ music, a NZ Music bonus  with Blue Smoke and goes Down the Hall on Saturday Night with Peter Cape.

Keeping Stock introduces  Rapture Ruckus

And WhaleOil gives his top 10 Kiwi songs

You can choose your friends . . .


I’ve resisted the temptation to find out what Twitter is because email and blogging provide more than enough opportunities for work avoidance activity.

But Inventory 2 at Keeping Stock has joined up and discovered he’s being followed  by a Labour MP.

Maybe the phrase you can choose your friends but not your relatives  needs to be updated to cope with the modern world of instant communication: you can choose your friends but not your relatives nor your followers.

Not interested but . . .


Like Reasonable Ray  and Inventory 2 I think it’s far too early for rugby.

I’ll go further than them and say I’m sick of it already because:

* there’s too much, too often.

* I hate the way it dominates so many other things so we have to arrange functions round it or provide a TV then have people divided into those who watch and object to other things or people who  interfere with the watching, those who sort of watch but can converse as well and those who don’t watch at all.

* I’m bored with games against Australia and South Africa.

* I need an emotional connection to enjoy watching and I know too little about most of the players to have one.

So I’d made a deliberate decision not to watch tonight’s game. But I happened to be cooking dinner at 7.30 and having seen a teaser on the news thought I might as well watch the opening minutes until the meal was ready.

My farmer was late so having started watching I kept on – not properly with undivided attention, I ate and cleared up from dinner, read the ODT & NBR, and wrote a couple of emails too. But I kept an ear on the commentary and every now and then I’d watch what was happening.

So there you are, even though I’m sick of  rugby, could only name a couple of players and not really interested, I still watched and oh how I hoped that Otago would win.

For the record they didn’t: Brumbies 33-  Otago 31.

Getting it right from the start


Labour got the Electoral Finance Act wrong from the start by trampling all over the convention that such measures should have multi-party support.

National is getting the first steps right  in the process which will provide a democratic and enduring replacement by involving all parties in consultation and providing opportunities for public submissions.

Inventory 2   notes John Key is keeping a promise made in his contribution to the third reading debate in December 2007.

(He also notes he started his blog Keeping Stock  in response to the bill and I’m pleased that while the EFA is going his blogging will continue).

Posts on Kiwiblog contributed some of the most intelligent opposition to the EFA. I agree with comments on this post  which give due thanks to David Farrar and Whaleoil  for the part they played in opposing the Act.

It was an attack on democracy and among its many faults was the way it made it stifled expression not just during the election campaign but for almost all of election year because of the confusion over what was and was not covered by it.

UMR asks its own questions – yeah right


Do you believe that the company hired by the Labour Party to poll on its behalf just happened to ask it’s own questions?

No, nor does Inventory 2 over at Keeping Stock.

…but it seems that UMR has been asking questions of voters without sanction from the party that it is contracted to…  

The relevant questions are over Helen Clark’s handling of Winston Peters and the donations debacle and include one on whether she has been frim enough.

UMR has a professional reputation to maintain. Which is more likely: it blotted it’s copy book by asking a few random questions of its own devices or Helen Clark mis-spoke when she said neither she, her staff nor the party had authorised such polling?

Still not sure? Think about what the big issue of last week was and whether a party would want to know what the public thought of how it was handling it.

Labour didn’t give instructions about questions on that issue. Yeah right.

Who do we believe?


TV1 news showed Winston Peters at the press conference at which he said he’d never asked Sir Robert Jones for money.

Sir Bob has just been on Closeup saying Peters asked him for money – in his words “hit me up for 50 grand” and that Roger McLay from Peters’ office came to pick up the cheque.

Over at Keeping Stock Inventroy 2 was watching Campbell Live on TV3 where Peters said the cheque was given to the Spencer Trust, not his party, followed by Sir Bob saying that the donation was to New Zealand First.

Words come back to haunt her


Fairfacts Media over at No Minister discovered three stories on Helen Clark and one on Jenny Shipley from 1999 and 2001 on the Herald politics page last night. From one on Clark’s Mission:

Labour leader Helen Clark launched her election campaign yesterday aiming to capitalise on public anger over party-hopping politicians and waste in the public sector.

“Our mission is to clean up Government and to clean up Parliament, too. We want the defectors out,” she told a cheering crowd in the Auckland Town Hall already in party mood after a 45-minute routine by Pacific band Te Vaka.

Labour’s law to force MPs who left their parties to resign from Parliament would be accompanied by a new era of moderation, frugality and integrity in the public sector, she told the meeting.

“The party is over for the senior management of [Work and Income New Zealand] and of all those other Government organisations who have wasted public money.”

Is this another ad for Tui?

Over at Keeping Stock  Iventory 2 comments on one of the other stories about The Transforming of Helen Clark.

Edwards’ main criticism of Clark is her penchant for publicly criticising her ministers.

“That could bring Helen down,” he says. “Her view is, ‘If you’re going to be open, you have to be seen to be open – I’m not going to tick them off in private and the public likes it … ‘

“While she’s riding high in the polls she’s in a very strong position in her own party but … if she drops off in the ratings there may be a backlog of grievance there.


Hat tip: No Minister, Keeping Stock.

Who Needs History Lesson Now?


Remember Helen Clark criticising John Key for his grasp of history last week?

In Colin Espiner’s story about her speech to a journalism conference she was quoted as saying: “Today’s political editors of the two main TV channels were barely in their infancy, if born, when Norman Kirk brought the troops back from Vietnam…”

I posted  on this yesterday and a couple of commenters said Kirk didn’t bring the troops home, that was done in 1971, before Kirk came to power.

Inventory 2 then said: … the Holyoake/Marshall National government started the withdrawl of NZ troops from Vietnam, although Clark is half-right about Kirk. He came to power in November 1972, and one of the first things he did as PM was to bring the REMAINING troops (of whom my eldest brother was one) home. But when you’re half-right, you’re also half-wrong!

If you are criticising someone else for lack of precision do you not need to be precise yourself; or does this just prove that a little knoweldge is a dangerous thing?

%d bloggers like this: