"Obviously for the money I would be Tiger Woods. You get paid a truckload of money," he said, adding "there are other benefits that clearly come with the job" too.
The conversation took a sexy turn after Veitch asked the jovial PM if he'd like to be love-rat Warnie. "Yeah, well given his current liaisons with Liz Hurley," Key said.
"I like Liz Hurley actually. I reckon she is hot." Key, who has two teenagers, Stephie and Max, admitted that Hurley was a "definite" in his dream date top three, adding that she's "slightly older".
Key's state of the nation speech, in which he announced plans to partially privatise some state assets, was much bolder than anyone predicted. It was always likely the Nats would look to a sell-off eventually, but it has come quicker than most picked.
It still deserves, though, to be rated a bold move.
With an election to be held this year, Key has put everything on the line and given Labour a key point of difference that Phil Goff will no doubt be relishing.
Well, actually he's given National a clear point of difference which Labour will be hating.
Key's transparency is to be applauded. He said he would not sell off assets without the voters having their say, and they will get it, likely in November.Did the Hammeroids seriously believe good and reliable policy can be plucked out of this air? That's the Labour way. Note Goff's half arsed and ill considered outburst a week or so ago. It takes time and careful research to establish good policy.It is also heartening to see the Government doing something to put the brakes on its borrowing and to stimulate the moribund economy. Apart from the long overdue reining in of state sector costs, National has until now appeared to be indecisive and lacking ideas on how to help spark a recovery.
And that's the real killer for Labour. Everybody across the whole political and media spectrum has misunderestimated the PM. From the Labour stooges at The Standard to the shouters of the Right. Suddenly and to their obvious surprise, their sneering 'smile and wave' sobriquet has become 'strong and decisive'.Key's personal rating, however, should have been enhanced by the moves this week. He has been a populist leader so far in his first term and has been reluctant to rock the boat.
We have now seen strong, decisive leadership. That, more than the sales themselves, should be the most comforting aspect of the political week.
I'm trying so hard to remember who was the PM in 2005.
Mr Wilce was sacked in 2003. He applied in 2004 to head the Defence Technology Agency, was appointed in 2005 and held the job for five years until September when he quit after a 60 Minutes story on his background.
From his maiden speech comes this nugget of pure gold. Everything within it is false."...journalism is a noble trade. It is the pursuit of truth to inform citizens......."
Mr Ross was elected to the Manukau City Council in 2004. On the new Auckland Council, he is co-leader of the right-wing Citizens & Ratepayers group and is the youngest councillor.
Also last night, the Labour Party chose Michael Wood, a member of the Puketapapa Local Board, as its candidate for the byelection.
Mr Wood, a former union organiser, was Labour's candidate in Pakuranga in 2002 and 2005.
A born loser versus a consistent winner.
But Mr Hickey, from financial website interest.co.nz, said that based on last year's earnings the four state-owned enterprises paid a dividend of 7.6 per cent, against the 5.5 per cent cost of new borrowing. "On the face of it the Government is a net loser by selling half of these state assets."
Consumer NZ chief executive Sue Chetwin agreed with Mr Key's assessment that electricity prices would not increase with partial privatisation.
"The power companies over the past 10 years have been rapacious in putting up their prices and I don't see that making part of the company available for the public to invest in will make much difference there."
However, Ms Chetwin said companies would become more transparent and would have to explain their actions to the public.
Kinda sums it up pretty well really. I like that word 'rapacious.' It accurately describes Goff, Cullen and Clark.
Nobody seems to have noticed but Cunliffe appears not to have given Goff the right script.
"We can unleash state-owned enterprises to create and grow new subsidiaries with private partners and shareholders," he said.
And finally, I hope all those Hammeroids noticed Mr Key quietly foreshadowing further asset sales for next parliamentary term. Hammeroids tend only to notice anything over 120 decibels.
Mr Key said none of the other state-owned enterprises were being considered for sale. However, more sales could be possible in 2014 or after.
...the Egyptian government was stable and looking for ways to respond to its people's aspirations.
Orakei councillor Cameron Brewer put it mildly when he suggested most Aucklanders would be surprised to learn that unelected members of the Auckland Council's Maori advisory board can vote on council committees.This indeed would be astonishing, if true. But it isn't true.Astonished would be more like it. The Government, having rejected the sensible option of dedicated Maori seats on the council, has breached a fundamental precept of democracy to ensure the Maori voice is heard. Handing full voting powers to appointed advisers - Maori or otherwise - is anathema. It will serve only to breed resentment in the wider community.
Under subsection (1), the board is required to appoint a maximum of two persons to the committees that deal with the management and stewardship of natural and physical resources. It appears the appointments are therefore limited. And, the Council can ask for more if it likes.85 Board’s specific functions
(1) The board must appoint a maximum of 2 persons to sit as members on each of the Auckland Council’s committees that deal with the management and stewardship of natural and physical resources.
(2) If the Auckland Council asks the board to appoint a person or persons to sit as members on any other of the Council's committees, the board may do so.
(3) The board must,—
(a) before making the appointments, seek the views of the Auckland Council as to the skills and experience that the Council would like the appointees to have; and
(b) when making the appointments, take the views of the Auckland Council into account.
(4) The board must consider a request by the Auckland Council that the board accept the delegation of a function by the Council.
(5) The board must act in accordance with a delegation that it has accepted.
"We asked the council for its requirements in regards to skills and expertise that it wanted for the members to join the committees prior to Christmas and we did not get a response back," he says."So, rather than wait any further, we have nominated two names for each of the majority of the committees. We have considered what skills they should have and we have put those names forward."
Asked if the public seemed aware of the Maori appointments, Mr Taipari replies: "I'm starting to find out that that's probably not the case. I believe the council has yet to get its head around it. But have we gained the balance of power? I would say we have not. What we have gained is an opportunity to participate.
"In my view, the council will always be in control of the make-up of the committees. If the council is unhappy, it can change the make-up of the committees by the flick of the wrist or the stroke of a pen. I just hope it's not made a mockery of."
[My emphases].
Note the last paragraph, that I've highlighted. That will become important.
If Taipari is to be believed, and I think he can be, he says he asked the Council for feedback, but never got a reply. So he just did what anyone would have done - he just got on with it and nominated two names for a majority of committees.
Standing Orders.
Council committees obtain their powers, including voting rights, not through legislation, but through council's own standing orders. Those standing orders regulate meeting behaviour, and may permit votes for appointed or co-opted members of committees, or they may not. That is up to each council. Or, if standing orders are silent on the voting rights of co-opted or appointed members, the chair of the committee can put it to a vote whether such co-opted or appointed member on the committee is entitled to a vote. This isn't unusual. Many councils and community boards throughout the country have non-elected members sit on them for their voice, but not their vote. An example is youth representatives.
So whether any co-opted or appointed member gets a vote, is entirely up to the council. This is the same for the Auckland Council, or Invercargill City Council. Provided councils act in accordance with legislation, they create their own destiny in this regard. Remember, all the legislation does is appoint the members. It didn't regulate their voting power.
Could you imagine the outcry if the Auckland Council legislation said Maori appointees could sit on committees for management and stewardship purposes but couldn’t vote!! Opposition MPs (including Phil Twyford) and others would be screaming blue murder!! There would be cries of “toothless appointees” and “votes for Pakeha, but not Maori”.
So the government did not put in the legislation that the appointees from the Maori board get a vote. They couldn't; that is for the Council. The legislation merely appointed them, and that is a far cry from the Herald's protestation that the government has handed "full voting powers to appointed advisers - Maori or otherwise..."
The government has merely give them a seat. Voting rights is for the council; and the government shouldn't be telling, and hasn't told, the Council who can, and cannot, vote.
Auckland Council Standing Orders
The Auckland Transition Agency set Standing Orders to serve as the standing orders of the Council until the Council adopts its first standing orders. I understand that hasn't happened. That's important because after they are adopted, any amendment of them requires a vote of not less than 75%.
Because they haven't been sdopted, the council can, as Mr Taipari alluded to, change the make-up of the committees by the flick of the wrist or the stroke of a pen. In one motion, it can, by simple majority, amend the ATA's standing orders by removing the right of appointed members, Maori or non-Maori, to vote. And Mayor Brown has a majority on the council.
But will he do it?
Today, the Mayor seemed ambivalent:
Play what cards? The cards you have trump any cards you were dealt!Asked for a definitive position on the matter, Mr Brown said it was important to remember that the decision to set up the Maori statutory board was made by the Government.
"We need to play the cards that were dealt to us. It is vitally important we establish ways of ensuring strong Maori representation and input into the Auckland Council.
"I am working with other councillors and the Maori statutory board to clarify their role and how they will interact and guide the work of the Auckland Council," Mr Brown said.
Labour's Auckland issues spokesman Phil Twyford said it was untenable and undemocratic for unelected members of the board to have voting rights alongside elected representatives and the Government should amend the law to make the positions advisory only.
Mr Twyford is correct. It is untenable and undemocratic. But it is not the government's problem to mend. That's a nice way of saying "we don't want Len to have to deal with it". And, I've dealt with the point about the positions being advisory - you know, government says votes for Pakeha but not Maori etc. It should never be the government's position to mandate how a council chooses the voting rights of a council committee - that's for the Council!
To me, it looks like the government has handed Mayor Brown a problem he could do without. Does he accede to his Labour Party heirarchy and amend standing orders accordingly? Or does he allow votes to non-elected committee members?
A Guest
Laarrrrf my arrrrse off!
I just wish Labour had presented it more carefully, as something that would take them a few years to implement after they found out how much more revenue a crackdown would yield, rather than exposing themselves in this manner. Overpromising and relying on magical thinking benefits no-one; it just leads to disappointment and adds to the public's cynicism about politicians. And that's something Labour should be trying to avoid.
Labour is promising the first $5000 earned will be tax free by the end of its first term in government - but those earning top dollars will pay more.
It would introduce an across the board 'tax free zone' so earners paid no tax on up to their first $5000 earnings, at an estimated cost of $1.3 billion.
Although likely to be initially introduced at a lower level, Labour would look to increase that zone to reach $5000 during its first term in government.
However, it would also introduce a new top tax rate for those earning at least six-figure salaries, although Labour had not yet decided what that would be.
Mr Goff said Labour would not pay for its tax reforms through borrowing, raising GST or selling off assets. Instead it would do so by "claiming back some of the windfall tax cuts from the very top earners".
He said the current 33 cents in the dollar was low by international standards.
Although the new top tax rate, or at what level of income it would set in, was not yet decided, Mr Goff said it would only apply to those earning at least more than $100,000 a year.
It's no bloody wonder Labour has not decided what the top tax rate will be. If you look at the IRD graph below, you will see the number of tax payers with incomes greater than $100k. A generous interpretation of the graph would have say 5,000 taxpayers at most with an average income of say $120k. It is a very very thin blue line, folks.
When you do the maths, you will see that Philly will need to apply a fat cats rich prick tax at the rate of, wait for it, drum roll...........
$13.00 for every dollar of income over $100,000.
Don't you believe me?
5000 people x $20,000 income = $100,000,000.
To raise tax revenue of 1,300,000,000 from $100,000,000 requires the tax payer to cough up $13.00 tax for every one dollar of income.
There can now be no doubt.
Phil's phucked.
The only gap bigger than the one between his front teeth is the one in his brain.
"But to be insulted without even knowing it, even though a billion others do, is dumb even by Obama standards."
Early morning TV viewers in China knew it would be played an hour or two beforehand. At the White House State dinner on Jan. 19, about six minutes into his set, Lang Lang began tapping out a famous anti-American propaganda melody from the Korean War: the theme song to the movie "Battle on Shangganling Mountain."
The Veteran is currently working with 'just the ticket' Productions which is owned by Ross Jennings, one of New Zealands foremost documentary producers, on a new documentary covering the events of 22 June 1968 which saw a nine man patrol from Victor 3 Company, 4 RAR/NZ (ANZAC) Battalion take on 60-70 VC in a two hour battle that saw them inflict a comprehensive defeat on the enemy at a cost of one dead and four wounded.Adolf Fiinkensein says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.Any fool can see there's only a faint passing resemblance to Hitler.
Yes. I agree it is appalling to use the Hitler analogy.
Tokyo Rose is far more appropriate.
Ms Tolley has put an end to speculation over whether Grammar's decision to have the majority of its Year 11 students sit Cambridge International Exams instead of NCEA is legal.
Questions were raised this week over whether Grammar was breaching the Education Act which says schools must offer a "nationally and internationally recognised qualifications system", such as NCEA.
The ministry has said the Cambridge exams do not meet that requirement as they are not nationally recognised.
But Ms Tolley disagrees, saying they are accepted by all universities.
She says that the Auckland school is offering NCEA to those who want it, even though it will be only a handful of Year 11 students.
Yes Minister, well done.
You've just earned National a couple more points in the next Roy Morgan poll. Why even the Hammeroids might have to admit Labour could never in a million years allowed such a terrible intrusion on state control.
This is the minister who has been falsely painted by Labour and its media friends as weak. Doesn't look particularly weak to me!
Lets have more of the same common sense please.
The contract of the 36-year veteran is due to expire on April 3 and he had wanted to stay on until August 2012 to make the most of his superannuation scheme.
But Police Minister Judith Collins declined – and told him that to agree would make her "a corrupt minister".
“The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner holds a State Dinner for a man who has the 2010 winner under House Arrest.”
Behind Dimona’s barbed wire, the experts say, Israel has spun nuclear centrifuges virtually identical to Iran’s at Natanz, where Iranian scientists are struggling to enrich uranium. They say Dimona tested the effectiveness of the Stuxnet computer worm, a destructive program that appears to have wiped out roughly a fifth of Iran’s nuclear centrifuges and helped delay, though not destroy, Tehran’s ability to make its first nuclear arms.
The truth is they didn't want to pay the price and decided to take the risk themselves. Now they want some one else to pay.Some Queenslanders say they have not been able to get flood cover, but the industry says that is a furphy.
Mr Sullivan says flood insurance is available - at a price - to everybody in Queensland.
Last April, Kennedy had signed the deal with Hyperion for the blockbuster book based on interviews her mother, Jacqueline Onassis, recorded in 1964, shortly after her husband's assassination, with historian Arthur Schlesinger. The recordings were intended for the future JFK library. But Onassis, who died in 1994, decided she did not want them made public during her lifetime. Caroline, who now controls the tapes, chose the 50th anniversary year to let them be heard.The deal with Hyperion included releasing the 6½ hours of audiotapes whose existence had been kept secret for 46 years. ABC would be the first to air them.
But then Caroline got wind of "The Kennedys" project, which had been green-lighted in 2009. A&E first knew it had trouble with the clan last summer when a story about the miniseries appeared on the front page of The New York Times.
The story contained details from an early draft of the script -- leaked to Kennedy family associates -- depicting JFK and Bobby's supposed sexual exploits
I worry that in the tremors and hysteria of the Times we’re seeing the sad end of liberalism.Its passing is to be mourned, perhaps most by true conservatives. -Civilization owes a debt to liberal politics. From the Reform Act and the religious emancipation fight of the British Whigs to the American civil rights movement, liberals have in fact held positions on political high ground (though not during Clinton’s exploitation of the Oklahoma City bombing). Liberals have seen government as a force for good, and sometimes it can be. World War II comes to mind. While conservatives have delighted in the free market, liberals have been there to remind us that all freedoms, including market freedoms, entail responsibilities. At the very least it can be said that we conservatives would not be so upright in our ideals if we hadn’t been pushing against liberals.
But liberalism, as personified by the New York Times, became a dotty old aunt sometime during the Johnson administration. She’s provincial, eccentric, and holds dull, peculiar views about the world. Still, she has our fond regard, and we visit her regularly in her nursing home otherwise known as Arts and Leisure and the Book Review. Or we did until Sunday, January 9, when she began spouting obscenities and exposing herself.
The Veteran could never be described as a 'Culture Vulture' ... more a meat and beer man (as I am sure The Realist will testify). And so it was a certain amount of 'discussion' greeted the statement from Memshab that today WE were going to 'Picnic with Beethoven'.
A majority of 57% say that politics had nothing to do with the shooting, and even a plurality of 49% of Democrats agree.This tawdry episode of hypocrisy and misinformation highlights for me all that is wrong with the Left, be it in the USA, Australia or New Zealand. It is not the wrong headed policies that are their worst feature but rather their absolute lack of morals and ethics. Obama, Rudd, Gillard, Clark and Goff are all peas in a pod.
And there it was on TV1 tonght a 'puff piece' incorporating some nobody from the Labour caucus and some drone from the PSA bemoaning the fact that the State Services Commission has reminded Departmental Chief Executives of the provisions of the 90 day employment law.
