The deer-stalking roar is over. Being uncomfortable about the ethics of duck-shooting, I'm reconnecting with Q & A.
Is it just the effects of months of Sunday morning TV abstinence or was this morning's show as superb as it seemed to me?
The Peter Arnett interview was coolly authoritative and the Hide interview asked the right questions. Hide's false answers were not the fault of any want of direct questioning.
Guyon Espiner's primary questions of the Green's Russell Norman, with penetrating supplementaries went straight to what I wanted to know about the Greens. Though I disagree with most of them, Norman's replies were reassuringly rational.
His were the most penetrating comments during the week about the new Mana party of Harawira. Russell pitched Bradford and Minto into the 1980s and 1990s. Sooner or later they'll have to decide whether they want to live there, or with Harawira, in the 1930s. Harawira is resuscitating the atavism and "blood privilege" entitlements and state capitalism practice of the national socialists, whose leader's name he is so fond of applying to his opponents.
Espiner today drew out in Russell Norman an assured leader segueing the Greens from their knee-jerk anti-market socialism and anti-Americanism, and back toward their natural middle class supporters, privileged enough to be able to dismiss economics as "immoral". The Greens will seriously worry Labour this election. They'll be a much more satisfying home for what Russell identified as the educated "progressive liberals" (plainly using liberal in the US sense). Progressive liberal politics is a mix of secular theology (sanctimony) and angstlust. Easing the Greens gently away from automatic support for class war and race privilege concepts will let them take privileged liberal votes much more comfortably.
I say that Norman is also easing away from anti-Americanism despite his essentially pacifist criticism of the US for killing Bin Laden instead of taking him for trial. Paul Holmes identified it as pacifism when he asked how war could be conducted without ugly things happening.
Norman's points are nevertheless important. This right-wing commentary (Rules for killing rogues) illustrates the anxiety we should all feel, with a tongue in cheek grope for principle from empirical observation.
Assassination by a super-power uninvited in another country should be controversial. On balance Obama's men did what they had to do. There is no question that proper process was not followed and that it would be better if it could be universal. On the other hand nor is there any doubt about justice being done -Osama's public gloating and threats for the future left no doubt about his guilt. More lives would be lost from the incitements Osama would have been able to release from the platform of a trial.
Holmes and Espiner are now a must watch. If Q & A can keep up today's standard my Sunday mornings are blocked out for much of this winter.
RSS feeds available for 
The only interesting competition in the next election is National (English wing) vs National (Brash wing) + ACT (Brash).
At least half the current National caucus would prefer Brash as finance minister to English: had you been elected, Stephen, I'm sure you would have been in that camp! Brash understand arithmetic. His aim is to get enough ACT MPs so that ACT + National's "Brash wing" are a majority of the government: at which point he is finance minister.
There are reasons to vote ACT, Green, or Mana. ACT is clear; Green, Maori, or especially Mana will be good "protest votes" on the left – voters not intending to form government. The Maori party will survive on tribal loyalty in a few seats, perhaps Labour will come through also.
ACT and Mana together will cut what remains of the NZF vote to pieces: Winston still may get 3% but he won't get 5% and he won't get a constituency. ACT will get at least one constituency (Epsom) perhaps more, and will be over 10%, quite likely over 15%.
If you are happy with the Hellen/Cullen, Key/English policies – they are basically the same – then you have a good reason to vote National.
But if you don't – on the left – why vote Labour? They're down around 24% currently, Mana will collect 5% of that, perhaps more — and most importantly, every vote that goes to Labour and not to National is a vote that doesn't support the Bill English wing of National against the Brash wing + ACT.
Unless you really think Key would offer a National+Labour "grand unity government" to keep Brash out, if you want to preserve the Hellen+Key policy settings, you do more good voting National than Labour.