Kiwiblog

I blogged on Saturday on Alan Gibbs address to the ACT Conference, which I enjoyed.

I missed the speeches by Emma Gibbs and David Seymour – which many said were the conference highlights.

I wasn’t impressed with parts of Muriel Newman’s speech. I can’t remember the exact words Muriel used but to describe the National/Maori Party confidence and supply agreement along the lines of the biggest disaster for race relations in all of history was excessively hyperbolic. One can legitimately criticise the agreement, without going so over the top. Also in response to a question on customary rights, I couldn’t believe the answer was that the Treaty of Waitangi extinguished any customary rights. Apart from being totally wrong, it also contradicted an earlier assertion that the Treaty had no legal effect.

John Armstrong has analysed Heather Roy’s speech, and I agree references to black swans and the like were less than wise.

The conference over all did not feel like the conference of a party in Government after 12 years of opposition. Most people were too focused on how the Government was not implementing all of their policies, rather than talking about the areas they were making a difference.

Rodney’s speech was positive and upbeat, but the real outstanding performance from Rodney was on the Sunday on Q+A. I recommend people watch it to see Rodney be frank about his mistakes, but also talk about the wins ACT has had, and what they will keep pushing for. The only negative mark I give him is talking about Key and English keeping on the policies of Clark and Cullen, rather than the more correct “some of the policies”.

Colin James covers that ACT has managed to have significant influence, beyond their five seats.

I thought Don Brash’s speech on closing the gap with Australia was good, as he made a great case for bolder policies needed – especially over spending. He should have chosen better language than “venal and ignorant” in talking about *some* voters, as it has diverted attention from the point he was making about the failing of the education system and the media on basic economic issues.

Of course for many the real highlight of conference was the after-match party hosted by Cactus Kate for the younger members. Had around 40 people in the penthouse suite at the Bolton, so was a very comfortable feel. Was great to catch up with old friends and make some new ones. An amusing aspect was seeing Chris from Dunedin wind various people up so well, I was sure he was going to get slapped.

Cactus, Jadis and I did some of the shopping for the party. Not sure New World has ever sold so much champagne in one go before!

The party ended a bit after 3 am and as we started a bit before 5 pm, it was a solid ten hour affair. Remarkably, there was almost no damage to the room – even after a couple of people from Young Labour snuck in!

Cactus Kate blogs on the recommendations of the Tax Working Group. With respect, I disagree with her on one aspect. She says:

Much has been made of building depreciation. Those who still think this is a starter should read up on the IRD website about “depreciation recovered” . It is erroneous to say that the current system doesn’t already have a clawback on sale where depreciation has been overclaimed. As it does for other fixed assets depreciated in business as well.

Now it is true that when a building is sold, you have to pay back the cost of the tax on the claimed depreciation. Everyone knows this. But Cactus misses the point – you get to have interest free use of that money in the interim – this is like interest free student loans, but even better.

It is effectively lending landlords taxpayers money for free. Residential buildings do not generally depreciate – they appreciate (along with the ladn they are on).

Let me give an example. Say you purchase a house and the building is deemed to be worth $200,000 of the total price. You can claim 3% depreciation diminishing value. In year one that is $6,000. Now if you pay 38% tax, then you effectively end up with $2,280 extra cash.

Now even if you are the worst investor in the world, let us assume you can at least earn the risk free rate of return of 6.29%. So you earn $143.41 of your $2,280.

Now that doesn’t sound much. However in year two you then have $2,423.41 of money to invest plus you claim $5,820 off your income as depreciation, which at 38% which is a further $2,212 to invest. So then your return courtesy of the taxpayer is $291.54.

If you sell your property after ten years, you will have claimed $52,515 off your income, resulting in reduced taxation of $19,956. But you will by then have $28,774 of extra money (at the conservative risk free rate of return), so after paying back the claimed depreciation you still have $8,818 left over.

If you keep your property for 30 years, then after paying back the depreciation you will have $106,639 surplus from being able to use that money interest free. Now this is in nominal terms, so won’t be as much in real terms. But it is still money for nothing and bad economics – just like interest free student loans are bad.

Depreciation is a necessary tax loss, when the asset really does depreciate, as it allows you to fund the cost of replacement. But when we have decades of evidence that residential buildings appreciate, not depreciate, I’d rather not give out interest free loans to property owners to claim a depreciation that doesn’t exist.

Cactus Kate names her number – 15, while commenting on Warren Beatty’s number of 12,775. Cactus notes:

And before he blogs on the subject, six of the 15 men know David Farrar hence why I am very nice to David. He is above all (and remember this girls) a very good referral source and dating agency as he knows a huge amount of centre-right wing thinking men . Being exceptionally nice to him assists in keeping his gob shut.

Heh. She makes me sound like a pimp.

As I have been single the vast majority of that time, the reason the count is not higher is the difference between men and women I guess. I just can’t be bothered. That is, I would rather repeat with one of the 15 I know and actually liked than find new ones.

This is a big difference. Unless you are in love/lust with someone, a guy often loses interest after the score. Not all men of course, but a reasonable number. To some degree it is built in I reckon for the survival of the species – we’ve just learn over the centuries to practice monogamy.

Cactus Kate says far better than me, what my views are:

As I advise anyone who comes to Whaleoil’s attention, the best course of action is to be polite and either ignore what he has written or write to him in a manner which puts your side of the story and he will more often than not be reasonable enough to publish that. He has a short span of attention thanks to his depression and soon moves to a new target.

The worst course of action is to give Whaleoil opposition. He is mental. I mean this in a loving caring way to his friends, but to his foe he shows as much hatred as he does love for his friends. Whaleoil loves opposition, he loves conflict and more importantly will never back down.

Pinkos do not understand Whaleoil. They try to tar his friends with cries that we should control him and advise him not to do things. Well newsflash, we do and he doesn’t bloody listen. His actions are consistent with a mix of depression, medication and frontal lobe disfunction. There is no point in reasoning with him for after his depression and the medication he is on, there is limited reasoning. So what are we meant to do? Abandon him? That’s what a Pinko would do.

So we will all continue to support Whaleoil.

So say we all. Wonderfully said Cactus. From time to time I suggest alternate courses of action to the Whale. He always gives me a good hearing. Most of the time he ignores me, and very occasionally he agrees with me,. But mates don’t need to agree all the time, or even most of the time.

Cactus blogs:

The political strategical stupidity in a coup is astounding in a party of 5 MP’s, 80% of whom are reliant for their place in Parliament solely on the electoral seat of the guy they plotted against as the party didn’t reach the 5% threshold. For that, the coup plotters deserve a slight fail. It would certainly have made a Constitutional sensation if there was a lost by-election and a Party was left with 4 MP’s having neither breached the 5% threshold or won an electorate seat. I can’t find out through internet resources as to what the outcome of that would actually be. A snap election with National polling on 60% the most likely outcome in hindsight.

For those who wonder, the ACT List MPs would remain in Parliament even if there was a by-election and ACT lost Epsom to National.

While Sir Roger is around he is a constant nuisance for anyone leading the Party. Heather Roy needed Sir Roger Douglas as co-leader or supporter as much as a hooker needs genital herpes to perform her job.

Heh Cactus has such a lovely turn of phrase.

All I have to say on the conclusion of the matter is that the coup plotters must now all fall on their swords, resign as MP’s and let the next candidates on the list: Hilary Calvert, Peter Tashkoff and John Ormond have a turn. I have no idea how any of those three would run as MP’s versus Boscawen, Douglas and Roy but anything must be better than a trio of turkeys who voted for an early Christmas. No idea what happened with David Garrett but one gives him the benefit of the doubt that he may very well have been at the pub at the time of the plotting.

Heh. I suspect Cactus is not the only ACT member upset with those Caucus members who thought a coup which would result in ACT ending up out of Parliament next election was a good idea.

Whale chips in:

Cactus is right when she says that the only thing worse than a leadership coup in a small party is a failed leadership coup. Especially so when you only need to get three out of five. …

Well traitors are traitors and there is only one solution. Death. I don’t mean physical death, I mean political death. The three of them are List MPs and the party could quite easily give them all the boot. …

I won’t repeat Whale’s suggested punishment for the person who leaked the putsch to the media!

Heh. Cactus Kate calls Brash a wimp, and outlines her own policy agenda for increasing national incomes. Her proposals:

• Restrict welfare to those unable to work due to disability
• Sell all state houses in prime real estate areas, and buy new houses far away from the CBD on the basis most state house tenants don’t need to be close to the CBD as they don’t work
• Abolish DPB and levy fathers directly for child support (unless unsafe). If mother under 25, means test on her parents income.
• A flat tax rate of 10%
• Have no tax at all for new companies employing at least ten people for their first two years
• Raise GST to 15%
• Abolish minimum wage and allow mass immigration of Filipinos to do low income domestic jobs, freeing New Zealand women up to engage in higher income jobs and/or leisure
• Abolish public superannuation
• Prioritise healthcare so those who smoke, drink excessively or are obese  got treated last
• Abolish ACC for a fault based system
• Surcharges for GP visits
• Full fees for university courses with scholarships for top performers
• No CGT, but a land tax and stamp duty

That should generate some debate!

The SST asks the question:

Lewis, who last week also appeared online for Australian Penthouse, has been nominated for a prestigious national women’s business award, the Veuve Clicquot Business Woman Award – a title held previously by fashion designer Annah Stretton and reality TV queen Julie Christie.

Lewis has been nominated by Hong Kong lawyer Cathy Odgers, the author of a blog written under the pseudonym Cactus Kate.

Odgers said her nomination was the result of having a “hunt around for something to do where I could contribute in a life-changing way to another woman deserving of assistance in fighting discrimination in her chosen profession”.

The nomination procedure requires an extensive submission. Examples must be given of corporate social responsibility by the nominee, entrepreneurial drive, leadership skills and financial success.

Odgers described Lewis as an online pioneer in New Zealand for the provision of sexual entertainment services to a registered pay-per-view clientele. Of Lewis’s corporate social responsibility she writes: “Hamilton is a small town and in purveying her personal services she respects client confidentiality in a manner that would leave many lawyers and accountants hanging their heads in shame.”

Odgers said examples of Lewis’s entrepreneurial drive were her dedication and training “to ensure she can deliver the quality of service and required aesthetics her profession demands”.

“Lisa has kept her body in incredible shape using a complex cardio and weight-training regime combined with a stringent diet that many women would run away from in horror.”

Her leadership style was direct and she epitomised a Kiwi “can-do” attitude, said Odgers. “She fits into any social circumstance, whether surrounded by the grace and charm required of high society sipping Veuve Clicquot or with sweaty rugby players at a local pub over a beer.”

Kiwiblog wishes Lisa all the best in winning the title.

I’m with Cactus on this.

I can’t see the cream of NZ’s aspiring business leaders applying to be The Apprentice just to earn a six figure salary working for Terry Serepisos.

Most business graduates reckon they will be earning $100,000+ before they are 30 anyway.

But it is not just about salary. The US Apprentice worked so well as people would do anything to work for the Don. Not so much for the US$250,000 salary but for the prestige, and more importantly the wealth of contacts you gain. Working for Trump will get you through almost any door.

I think Serepisos has been very successful, and like what he has done with the Pheonix. He isn’t a bad choice for the role, but the problem is that with one or two exceptions there are no good choices.

Unlike the US, you don’t need to work for a top businessman, to gain access to top business and political leaders. We are a small enough country that people see them all the time.

So what was needed was a strong personality. Bob Jones would have been ideal 20 years ago. It would have been the best viewing possible.

Heh. Upsetting either Whale Oil or Cactus Kate is an inadvisable thing. Upsetting them both together has consequences, as one can see at Gotcha with the registration of a new company called Keith Ng Ltd, registered in Belize.

If not sure what this is about, read this on Public Address and this from Cactus Kate.

Cactus Kate blogs approvingly of a speech Barack Obama gave to the NAACP where he told parents to put away the x-box:

So last night we had the Obama speech/sermon to the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). Most of the first part of the speech was dreadful, about how he was going to spend more of mostly the white man’s money. Being at a coloured convention he received a thunderous applause for every trillion he stole.

But then Obama turned it all on the audience. He was brilliant. I think he wrote this part of the speech himself.

“Government programs alone won’t get our children to the Promised Land,”

“We have to say to our children, ‘Yes, if you’re African-American, the odds of growing up amid crime and gangs are higher, Yes, if you live in a poor neighborhood, you will face challenges that someone in a wealthy suburb does not.’

“But that’s not a reason to get bad grades, that’s not a reason to cut class, that’s not a reason to give up on your education and drop out of school. No one has written your destiny for you. Your destiny is in your hands and don’t you forget that.”

“I want them aspiring to be scientists and engineers, doctors and teachers, not just ballers and rappers,” Obama said. “I want them aspiring to be a Supreme Court justice. I want them aspiring to be president of the United States.”

Only a black President could give that speech.

Kate goes on to say:

If only we could have an effective co-President who made sound fiscal decisions

I agree. A lot of what Obama has done I have no problems with. His fiscal policies though are an unmitigated disaster (yes even worse than Bush and he was crap fiscally) and I think will lead to another US crash when they start printing money to pay the bills.

A short clip of part of the speech. He even urges parents to take action if their neighbour’s kids are misbehaving – including smaclking them!

Phil Goff has been handing out lots of advice lately from telling Neelam Choudary to bring a chaperone to have coffee with Richard Worth, to his musings on how a younger woman would not be interested in an older man.

Cactus Kate has located further advice that Dear Phil has been handing out to his MPs. Here are some extracts – the full set is at Cactus Kate:

Dear Phil,

Simon keeps asking me for coffee after our Breakfast television spot early on Thursdays.

Should I take a chaperone?

Thanks and keep up the good work. I am enjoying your strong positive leadership.

Yours sincerely

Jacinda Ardern M.P.

And Phil’s reply:

Jacinda

Lovely to hear from you. I have looked up your parliamentary profile and indeed you are a strikingly beautiful young lady. I don’t know how I haven’t noticed you before and for that I apologise.

It is clear to me that you should always take a chaperone. That Bridges lad reminds me a lot of myself at that age. In which case you are always under danger.

I suggest speaking to one of Helen’s old people and arranging a chaperone. They could possibly wait in the car while you have these meetings and you can text a warning to them if you feel in danger. Make sure you keep these texts for later use. We could set Bridges up a beauty.

Regards

Phil.

And

Dear Phil

I am embarrassed to mention this but considering your comments recently I need clarification.

As a woman if I receive some 100 text messages and phone calls in the space of a few months, should I think a man finds me sexually attractive?

I ask as it is Duncan Garner again, he just won’t leave me alone. Is he hiding his attraction to me under the guise of journalism? I am old enough to be his mother, but he’s a cuddly little pup.

Sincerely

Hon. Annette

Hopefully this may become a regular series!

So many comments today. First Cactus Kate comments on Phil Goff’s description of Complainant A is “strikingly beautiful”:

Imagine a man from the centre-right of politics objectifying a woman as “strikingly beautiful”. The left would be outraged.

Is it appropriate for a Party leader to be commenting on the physical appearance of one of his members? A member you are meant to be protecting the identity of? At what point did Goff feel the need to comment at all on her appearance? What possible context would it have been necessary to utter this stupid answer?

Kate mischievously suggests the feminist wing will be so outraged it may be BBQ at Maryan’s place!

The Sunday News reports that Richard’s daughter is standing by him:

THE only child of under-fire former minister Richard Worth claims the businesswoman who filed a complaint with police against her dad “has problems and needs help”.

“He is the best man in the world and I love him so much,” Worth’s 28-year-old daughter Virginia told Sunday News. …

“I am standing by my dad and that is all there is to it,” said Virginia Worth, a Newmarket, Auckland, rental car company manager.

“I am 100 percent confident and sure that everything is going to work out perfectly. I’m very proud of my father and he has been the most amazing and devoted parent anyone could wish for.”

There is enormous sympathy for Lynne and Virgina Worth, having to deal with all this.

John Tamihere writes:

The real target is not Dr Richard Worth or the complainant.

They are but a means to an end in the final game. In fact, they are merely unsuspecting pawns.

The head Labour wants is that of prime minister John Key.

He is new to the rough and tumble of bloodthirsty politics, of being in the gutter and having to slug it out.

While he is undoubtedly an outstanding corporate leader, and as such has had to deal with significant issues in regard to huge volumes of money and large numbers of staff and clients, the real dirty side of politics is now in play.

The question is, can he handle the constant and continual harassment and pressure the opposition will bring to bear? …

We see this by Goff insisting that the Prime Minister of New Zealand has to meet this “strikingly attractive” complainant despite the refusal to supply the text messages in advance.

Kerre Woodham writes:

What on earth would possess a man to think he could engage in this sort of behaviour and get away with it? Especially when one of the women was a Labour Party member.

He should be dismissed for that sort of poor judgment alone. There may well be no law against being a randy old goat but some of the allegations make for very uncomfortable reading.

Bill Ralston pronounces on the handling:

At 9.21 am on June 3, like the rest of the media, I received a short email statement from Richard Worth stating he was resigning his ministerial portfolio and would be making no further comment. Seven minutes later another arrived from Prime Minister John Key’s office saying he had accepted the resignation and would be making no further comment.

Hello? What were they thinking? A minister of the Crown resigns and the Government has nothing to say? Did anyone in the Administration seriously think journalists in newsrooms across the country would simply say, “Hey Richard Worth’s resigned but no one’s talking. Pity, well, where shall we go for lunch today?”

I think most people accept now the original press release was inadequate.

The problem with the Goff allegations is that he told Key only some considerable time, perhaps months, after first receiving the information that an Indian woman alleged Worth repeatedly made sexually inappropriate texts and phone calls to her.

He produced no affidavit from her and no texts were given to support the claim. Key instructed one of his senior staffers to investigate. Worth reportedly denied all, and threatened libel action against the woman. In a case where it was Worth’s word against an anonymous woman, Key was forced to accept his minister’s assurance.

And they still are refusing to provide the texts!

And finally the HoS editorial has some advice:

It is probably telling that, when asked on radio what he would do if criminal charges were laid, Key said that he could not sack Worth twice. It plainly implied that he did sack the minister and allowed the public announcement of a resignation as a face-saving gesture. If so, it is plainly the only slack the PM is cutting him. Helen Clark left a back door ajar or or at least unlocked for errant ministers to return; Key makes it plain that it will be a very cold day in hell before Richard Worth holds a ministerial warrant in one of his Cabinets. …

As to Worth himself, it may be beyond his capability to feel any shame. A man who exudes a sense of entitlement disproportionate to his status, he seems incapable of showing remorse about actions that plainly warrant remorse. After a private trip to India in which he spoke in his capacity as a minister while promoting an aviation company in which he had an interest, he was carpeted by his boss but would only allow, with a pained smile, that there had been a “perception” of a conflict of interest.

Well, the crystal-clear perception in that case was everybody’s but his – and this case is beginning to look remarkably similar. Rather than hide behind the niceties of legal procedure, Worth might like to act like a man: tell the public what he said and wrote, and when and to whom. And then he could explain why he considers it acceptable behaviour for an MP, never mind a minister.

This is Richard’s problem. He has the legal issue and the political issue. The best response to the legal issue is to say nothing, but that is the worst response to the political issue.

I speculated this morning that Goff may have known about the earlier complaint for as long as 75 days. I was wrong. It seems he said on Morning Report that he was alerted way back in November 2008 – within days of the alleged harrassment beginning.

So in fact Goff knew about this for six months – including most of the period where the alleged 100 phone calls and texts occured. And then three months after they stopped, then raised it with the PM.

Cactus Kate also raises issues around why was Worth not told to stop early on.

I don’t think any of this excuses the alleged behaviour though.

The hypocrisy from Labour on this issue is quite stark. They are saying Key should not have taken Worth’s word for it, and investigated further.

Now Worth not only denied the allegation, he wrote that he was prepared to sign a statutory declaration that they are false. This is a sworn oath on penalty of perjury – Jeffery Archer got a long jail sentence for making such a false oath. So you had a barriaster and solicitor of the High Court, an MP, and the Associate Minister of Justice saying he will sign a sworn statutory declaration, against a second hand complaint with no supporting documentation.

Sure with benefit of hindsight you can argue one should have asked for the text messages – but the complainant herself has said the text messages by themselves prove nothing without the phone calls.

Now for the hypocrisy compare Labour’s position on Owen Glenn’s donation to Winston Peters legal fees.

Helen Clark admitted that she had known for over six months that Glenn said he donated to Peters. She phoned Peters who denied it, and she left it there – saying it was not up to her to investigate – depute this being a breach of the Cabinet Manual.

Now Peters did not, as Worth did, offer to sign a statutory declaration. He did not state in writing they were false. He did not say he was so convinced they were false he would sue anyone repeating them.

So the double standard from Labour is immense. In Helen’s case she had direct first hand testimony from Owen Glenn, on a mater of absolute fact (did he donate to Winston’s legal fees or not – can be proven within minutes), and a mere verbal denial from Winston. And Labour says Helen was right to take Winston at his word, even though this was a simple factual matter that could have been proven by a request to Glenn for a copy of the bank transfer.

And here we have a PM who has an anonymous allegation from a Labour Party activist, who will not be named, who has not supplied any documentary evidence – against a Minister who denies it in writing, and says he will sign a statutory declaration at risk of perjury if false.

Now sure a reasonable person can say both Clark and Key should have inquired further. And a reasonable person could say neither Clark nor Key should have inquired further – you trust a Minister unless there is direct written proof. Also one can very reasonably say Key pushed as far as he could (given the offer of a statutory declaration) but Clark did not (as it was a simple factual matter which could have been proven in minutes)

But how can anyone reasonably claim Clark was right not to inquire further, while Key was wrong not to do so?

I’m sure some of the commenters will give it a good go though.

Cactus Kate has done a very lengthy and detailed post on the conflicts of interest around NZX as both a regulator and a commercial player. Her summary is:

1. NZX is privy because of their Regulatory position to information that makes them a trusted source.
2. NZX charges for dissemination of this information to the marketplace and generates 45% of its operating revenue in this fashion.
3. NZX is spreading its Regulatory role of a trusted source collector and disseminator of this information into commercial publications it is planning to purchase.
4. NZX has had no permanent Head of Supervision for a year and it is arguable that this person is truly independent anyway.
5. NZX claims that its Supervisory and Commercial operations are “quarantined”.
6. NZX Supervisory staff have been financed into an employee share scheme. The NZX CEO is according to the latest accounts, the third largest shareholder in the company and has a sole financial incentive to increase the earnings per share to receive more shareholding.
7. The Securities Commission has previously raised issues of conflict with respect to NZX.
8. The Securities Commission is over stretched and under resourced, more so due to recent finance company issues.
9. The Securities Commission has called internationally for “independent, strengthened, and well-funded regulators for implementation at the domestic level” due to recent subprime crisis issues.
10. The NZX CEO has a new politicised role and is seen by political advisors as having large influence on John Key.

I suspect we will see ongoing scrutiny.

For the first time ever, a day out with Cactus Kate had the food costing more than the alcohol. This is rare as Cactus only drinks good quality champagne. She is easily my most expensive mate.

We decided to lunch today at Shed 5, and did our little part for helping Southland survive the recession.

As we decided what to order for our mains, oysters were ordered for entrees. Now I am not actually a huge oyster fan normally, but these ones (Bluff of course) were just divine.

So oysters were ordered for the main course also. And again so very nice. It just wasn’t enough. So when the waitress came to take our dessert order, the look on her face was superb as we ordered ice cream and oysters for dessert.

Then after dessert, you can guess what we ordered for coffee – yes more oysters. They really were that good.

Shed 5 started to worry they may run out – they told us they only had 97 dozen, and that is probably now under 90 dozen. My strong advice to anyone who likes oysters is to head to Shed 5 this week before Cactus empties their stock.

Cactus Kate announces her blogger of the year:

In my years of blogging, in fact in all my years being involved in politics I have never met anyone who cares so little about what those on his side or against him thinks of what he writes. A man so passionate that he is right that he will argue an entire day on a blog with every nutcase placed in front of him. …

A man who devotes his entire energy into blogging, has his own business cards for his blog and in my entire time knowing him, regardless of where he is going to meet you, will wear only his own merchandise. [He] is a true beast of conflict. Sometimes with the loudest and boorish of potty-mouths yet in a milli-second can say or write something so poetic, meaningful and intelligent that you can only burst out laughing wondering just who the fuck this guy is.

A man who when told to stop by his own people, calmly tells them to combine speed, sex and travel.

If you can’t work out who she is referring to, you must be new here

Cactus Kate has blogged her Dom Post column rating the female candidates. But she is not rating them on looks:

It is a challenging column to write as I could over-excite the male readership in having them believe that I find women attractive, empirical evidence proves this actually does little harm to a woman’s chances with the opposite sex. But refusing to engage in faux celesbianism, I shall analyse from the perspective of how women choose their men in New Zealand, not solely for physical attraction, but power, status and general usefulness at home.

So who does Cactus declare the hottest candidate:

The worst part of this column was going to be declaring that the winner of the hottest female candidate has to be Helen Clark. She’s been the most powerful person in the country for nine years, has interfered in your lives, told you not to smack your children, stole a third of your income, given some of it back and expected thanks then persuaded with minimal charm and maximum control to get you to vote her in once and back for two more thrashings. Not content with that she has the “charisma” to turn around and call the other guy untrustworthy, controlling and a domestic bully.

So Helen wins!

Cactus Kate has been rating the male candidates in her Dom Post column. To help her out she asked un-PC Lesbian to rate the female candidates. A unique perspective!

Cactus Kate rates the male MPs and Canidates for hotness. Those who make her list are:

• Rodney Hide (ACT)
• Shane Jones (Labour)
• Hone Harawira (Maori)
• Paul Quinn (National)
• Nathan Guy (National)
• Darren Hughes (Labour)
• Russel Norman (Greens)
• Shane Gallagher (Greens)
• Ron Mark (NZ First) – she compares him to mini-me
• Stuart Nash (Labour)
• Chris Tremain (National)
• Todd “Boris” McClay (National)
• Charles Chauvel (Labour)
• Chris Finlayson (National)
• Grant Robertson (Labour)
• Simon Bridges (National)
• Mitch Lees (Libertarianz)

A very balanced list – 6 National, 5 Labour, 2 Greens, 1 ACT, 1 Maori, 1 NZ First, and 1 Libertarianz

Cactus Kate writes a wonderful piece of how useless many meetings are. If she ever gets convicted of a serious crime, I am going to recommend to the Judge that he sentences her to three month’s servitude in a Government Dpeartment. She’ll be in a strai jacket within a week.

Kate also picks up on Winston talking about his accounts:

They’ve not been able to find a thing wrong with New Zealand First’s accounts outside and around New Zealand

Kate wonders why NZ First has bank accounts or records outside New Zealand. A good question.

Two interesting stories in the SST on Owen Glenn, but first a little mystery.

A reliable source tells me that  that a crew member on Glenn’s boat, Ubiquitous, told a family member that a recent guest on the boat, when in the Mediterranean, was Labour Party president Mike Williams. Mr Williams it is reported spent several days on board.

It is also reported that Mr Williams left the boat hastily, after receiving a phone call from the Prime Minister who was not amused he was there.

Maybe someone could ask Mr Williams if he was on the boat as reported, and why he left.

Anyway first we have Matthew Hooton:

Owen Glenn is flying back to New Zealand to sink Helen Clark, Winston Peters and the corrupt government they lead.

I love Matthew’s subtle style.

Clark may soon have reason to regret the disgusting way she treated Glenn when he was here for the opening of the University of Auckland’s new Owen G Glenn Business School, to which Glenn donated more than $7.5 million. For Glenn, the immigrant schoolboy from Mt Roskill, who never had an opportunity to attend university himself, this was the culmination of his more than 40 years of success in business.

Clark ruined his day. Her almost unbelievable rudeness to the biggest benefactor of her own party and the country’s largest university shocked all decent New Zealanders. In public, she uttered not one word to Glenn, nor would she look him in the eye, and she sent her prize thug Trevor Mallard to keep him away.

Worse, Clark is believed to have turned on Glenn in private with angry words being heard through the walls by those in the next room.

It was meant to be a day of glory for Glenn, and he was treated as a leper.

Glenn will also have been fully briefed about the vicious smear campaign launched against him by Labour ministers and Beehive apparachiks. As usual, it was Mallard who sank furthest into the slime, reportedly advising people privately to check for scars on Glenn’s forehead, implying Glenn has received some type of brain surgery or electroconvulsive shock therapy. These are not nice people who surround Clark.

People may think Matthew is making this up. But not only did I hear the same thing at the Senate party in Wellington, the SST itself reports the smears in its main article on Glenn:

It can hardly have helped when Labour’s deputy, Michael Cullen, started describing Glenn as “confused”, and when rumours began to circulate in political circles that perhaps Glenn’s memory wasn’t quite what it was since his surgery last year to treat a life-threatening subdural haematoma (bleeding on the brain), something Glenn had openly discussed with the Herald in February.

The article quotes Cactus Kate on Glenn:

More recently, the acerbic blogger “Cactus Kate” (the nom de plume of a Hong Kong-based New Zealand lawyer) took Glenn’s political temperature during a long conversation with him in Auckland’s Soul Bar in 2002, and came away convinced there had been a meeting of right-wing minds. Writing earlier this year, she recalled that, “I didn’t hold back on the government of the day and Mr Glenn was extremely supportive of the idea that they were all things evil … He did not seem to like the `sisterhood’, unless they were hot and invited him to watch. He bemoaned the lefties in New Zealand and their sexual habits … “

I suspect Mr Glenn donated to Labour because they were the Government, rather than any firm ideological commitment to centre left causes.

Anyway Tuesday will be a fascinating day.

I’m sure all the media will be reading Cactus Kate’s comments on what she calls the Soper Syndrome – hot aging male journalists.

Kate proclaims the following as hot:

• “Baron” Barry Soper
• “Gorgeous” Sean Plunkett
• “Pitt-Clooney” Stephen Parker
• “Chess Champion” Vernon Small
• Richard Long
• Richard Griffin

The only one she marks down is Duncan Garner who gets “not hot yet”.

I think Kate is protesting too loudly here. Those of us who knew Kate before she was a blogger recall a small period of time when she had a small crush on Mr Garner. And when I say small crush, I mean raging stalker like obsession. Luckily Duncan got married, and Kate got distracted!

Most people will have seen a comment at some stage about how much money men spend on sex through dinners, presents, flowers etc.

Cactus Kate has reversed the equation and calculated how much money a woman spends on looking beautiful for men. Her calculations are:

Hair monthly (basic not “hair extensions”) $300 per month = $3600
Waxing and other beauty treatments $100 per month = $1200
Massage, pedicures etc $100 per month = $1200
Make-up/skin cleansers/toners and moisturisers = $300
Annual clothing spend on clothes you only wear out to meet men or with your man = $3000
Personal trainer/gym fees/education and reading material = $300 per month = $3600
Shoes. I consider it compulsory to spend lots of money on fabulous shoes = $2000
Phone calls/Drinks/lunches and dinners with girlfriends to drown your sorrows of bad relationships ie. therapy = $500 per month = $6000
Condoms & contraceptive pills (because lets face it – men over 30 years old totally suck at carrying rubbers) = $400 annually
Sex toys (again men have no clue so girls have to buy – Kiwigirl I am calling you out, you can add a zero here) = $500 annually
Pregnancy and STD checks (compulsory for anyone with half a brain and lets face it – the man doesn’t have to worry about being pregnant in the morning) = $250 per annum

So my rough estimation is a cost of $22,050 annually spent on looking and feeling good in the most part for men.

Kate goes on to say that if she gets sex only once a week then women are paying $424 per bonk, so men should stop whiming about their costs.

Her final advice:

So men, next time you take a single woman to dinner with the intent of asking her home afterwards, don’t ask her to split the bill.

Just shut the fuck up and pay.

Other financial words of wisdom from Kate have been how you don’t book her to fly economy class if you are flying business class!

Another fun night watching Back Benchers yesterday. Cactus Kate was in town so we settled in early at 5 pm. Highly amusing as she berates the waitress for the lack of decent champagne available in the bar, and the bar owner being at the table next to us.  However the staff redeemed themselves by following the instruction to automatically bring out a new bottle whenever the existing bottle got below 20% full.

We ended up with a very mixed table with Kate (ACT), myself (Nat), Will de Cleene (Greens/ACT), a 9th floor staffer (Labour), a National Radio presenter and an Electoral Commission staffer. Made for a fun night, which once again ended up at Mighty Mighty in Cuba Mall.

Our own Samantha, Cactus Kate, reviews the Sex and the City movie. Don’t read it if you don’t want to know what happens!