Radio NZ reports:

Association chair Ben Wilson said if the challenge was successful, the group was considering further action over the way Uber handles the dismissal of drivers.

Drivers were being cut off from using the app unilaterally without being given any explanation, he said.

Some drivers had reported they were being deactivated without warning, when their ratings from customers using the service went down.

The rating system is based on the average rating out of five that drivers have received from riders, over their last 500 trips. 

If a driver’s rating fell below an arbitrary number – which the association did not know, but believed to be somewhere below 4.6 – then they faced the chance of losing their jobs, Mr Wilson said.

“Essentially they have no recourse – it’s just, ‘Sorry you’re out, good-bye.'”

So this union thinks drivers who continually get bad ratings should be allowed to continue? I love the fact that Uber drops drivers whose average ratings falls below a certain level. It gives a great incentive for me to stay a customer and for drivers to give excellent service.

Had a driver this week who is a software developer – has set up his own company. He’s driving Uber in his spare time so he has an income stream while the product is developed. Great to see Uber providing the flexibility for someone like him to be an entrepreneur.

“Drivers should be compliant, they should be safe, and driving should be profitable. That’s what we are trying to get to happen,” Mr Wilson said.

The rating system is a great way to ensure safe and compliant drivers. Yet Wilson seems to want to not have low ratings lead to dismissal. And if driving for Uber is not profitable – then don’t. It isn’t compulsory.

An Uber spokesman said the company had a publicly available deactivation policy, “which provides a comprehensive explanation of the policy for drivers”.

“In all situations where an account is at risk of deactivation, driver-partners will be either be warned so they can take appropriate steps to improve their service, or have the opportunity to present their version of events should an allegation be made against them,” the spokesman said.

The deactivation policy stated that each city had a minimum average rating.

“We will alert you if your rating is approaching this limit, and we will share information about third-party quality improvement courses that may help you improve your rating,” the policy said.

“If your average rating is below the city minimum after multiple notifications, your Uber partner account will be deactivated.”

Sounds very fair.

Stuff reports:

After years in the doldrums, Wellington has emerged as the most optimistic part of the country.

The latest Westpac McDermott Miller regional economic confidence survey saw the capital unseat Bay of Plenty as New Zealand’s most upbeat region, with a net 39 per cent of residents expecting good economic times in the year ahead ahead. …

Westpac industry economist David Norman said Wellington was now at its most optimistic in nine years.

“Wellington’s regional economic confidence has been inexplicably weak in recent times, but it appears that residents are beginning to acknowledge the strength in the local economy, with expectations that the region will be better off in a year,” Norman said.

“The population is growing, house prices are surging, and the region enjoys some of the highest incomes in the country.”

There is a good vibe about at the moment.

Stuff reports:

The largest review yet of bike helmet use by 64,000 injured cyclists worldwide has found helmets reduce the chances of a serious head injury by nearly 70 per cent.

Claims that bike helmets damaged the neck and caused serious brain injury (diffuse axonal injury) were also found to be wrong in the study by University of NSW statistician Dr Jake Olivier who presented on Tuesday to the international injury prevention conference Safety 2016 in Finland.

Advocates of mandatory helmet laws – which only exist in a small number of jurisdictions including New Zealand and Australia – hope the Australian research will debunk “junk science” often cited by helmet opponents in the ongoing and heated debate.

I am sure that cycle helmets do reduce head injuries in crashes. This is very good research dispelling the myth that they cause harm if worn in a crash.

However that does not mean that there should be a law making them compulsory, and that such laws increase the overall health of the population.

There have been numerous studies and reports concluding that mandatory helmet laws reduce overall health benefits. This is because that while they absolutely do reduce the severity of a crash on a cyclist, they result in far fewer people cycling. And cycling is healthy and reduces obesity and increases life expectancy.

Also some evidence mandatory laws increase risky behaviour.

I don’t think they should be compulsory in New Zealand. They should be a matter of education.

Stuff reports:

Labour leader Andrew Little has rejected a suggestion by his predecessor Helen Clark that parties on the left must “command the centre ground” to win elections, describing the suggestion as “a pretty hollow view”.

Yeah what would that Clark know. It’s not as if she has ever led a political party, let alone won an election.

Little says he instead is focused on building “a coalition of constituencies” as he prepares for next year’s election.

Sounds like the old strategy of the missing million voters!

“The truth is that the modern politics in democratic societies has become a bit like a consumer exercise. You try something; you try something else.”

However, they had to ensure they had the support of voters in the centre in order to succeed, she said.

“It’s possible and it’s necessary, because to win an election in New Zealand or probably any Western society, you must command the centre ground.

“You have your strong core of supporters, but you must get the centre ground voters, and I think I was successful in that for quite a lot of years.”

So Clark who won three elections say the key is to get centre ground voters.

But Little said he didn’t think an analysis about the centre is at all helpful – “it’s meaningless”.

But the massively successful Little dismisses the advice of only NZ Labour leader in history to win three elections.

It is hard to say how delighted I am Little is dismissing the advice of Helen Clark as meaningless.

Stats NZ reports:

Almost 95 percent of women and men aged 65+ years said they voted in the 2011 general election, compared with just over half of those aged 18 to 24. …

However, 87 percent of all those aged 65+ said they’d voted in local elections in a 2012 survey, compared with just 28 percent of people aged 18 to 24.

If you want to win, you need the support of older New Zealanders – they actually bother to vote.

Michael Reddell blogs:

At about 3pm, the first Singapore Airlines flight to Wellington, via Canberra of all places, lands at Wellington Airport.  Wellington-boosters, well represented on the Council and the Chamber of Commerce, talk up the first “long-haul” flight to and from Wellington.  All of which would be more impressive if it were not for the ratepayers’ money being (secretly – no information on the amounts or terms of these sweetheart deals, no robust cost-benefit analysis etc) used to make it all possible.    Were the flights financially self-supporting that would be the best evidence of them being “a good thing”.  But they aren’t.  That means (a) a presumption against them being “a good thing”, and (b) a likelihood that they won’t survive for long, at least without some permanent subsidy from the long-suffering ratepayers of Wellington. It probably isn’t a subsidy to the giant Singapore Airlines –  they’ll probably just manage a normal return on capital –  but by quite which canons of social justice ratepayers should be subsidizing government departments (probably the main purchasers of tickets on the Wellington-Canberra leg, and one of the larger sources of international passengers from Wellington) is beyond me.

So ratepayers may be subsidising government departments!

There are plenty of people around –  including commenters here on previous airport posts –  who will attack Infratil.  I’m not one of them.  Infratil is a private sector business, no doubt pursuing (as it should) the best interests of its shareholders. 

And good on them for doing so. A smart company.

Reddell quotes airport chairman Tim Brown:

The Airport extension is forecast to cost $300m. If airport users who get no value from it (people on smaller aircraft, people buying coffee, parking cars, etc) don’t pay anything towards it, then the estimated present value to the airport company from those who do benefit from the extension and do help pay for it may be about $100m. So on purely commercial grounds and avoiding cross subsidies the shareholders are expected to contribute that sum.

So can the extra $200 million be justified on wider economic grounds? Reddell continues:

If some branch(es) of government in fact do stump up hundreds of millions of dollars beyond what is commercially justifiable, some of it will certainly benefit some local businesses, but most of it will simply be money down the drain; spent on real resources to build an extension that simply has almost no economic value.  Other than the exercise commissioned by the airport company itself –  funded by the Council –  no one who has taken a hard look at the numbers regards the claims of large scale economic benefits as stacking up.  Of course, there are plenty of “boosters”, and others who think of (real) long-haul flights from Wellington as a nice idea, but the numbers simply don’t stack up.

I agree. I think you can argue there is some (relatively modest) benefit to Wellington, but I can’t see a case for a taxpayer contribution on the grounds of a benefit to New Zealand. You would have to believe that a longer runway for Wellington would mean people deciding to fly to New Zealand who otherwise wouldn’t have.

Somewhat encouragingly, of the eight mayoral candidates not one is now unambiguously in support of spending lots of ratepayers’ money on the runway extension.

Yes, there has been a significant change in opinion.

I’m not usually a single issue voter –  and the debacle of the Island Bay cycleway still concentrates the mind in other directions at times –  but this time I am.  There is simply too much money at stake, to allow boosters with the public cheque book to pursue their field of dreams vision for Wellington airport.

Yep.

The Herald reports:

A group claiming a dentist misled the public and disrespected other health professionals over fluoridation has publicly released a letter from the Dental Council saying the dentist has been “cautioned”.

Anti-fluoride lobby group Fluoride Free NZ published the letter from the council’s legal adviser, which said Dr Rob Beaglehole was cautioned over comments made on TV show Paul Henry earlier this year.

On the show, which aired in April, Beaglehole – who is a spokesman for the New Zealand Dental Association and chief dental officer at the Nelson District Health Board – said all health authorities around the world urgently recommended water fluoridation.

“There’s not one reputable health organisation anywhere on the globe that will say water fluoridation causes problems that some of the anti-fluoridationists are highlighting,” Beaglehole said on the show.

Fluoride Free NZ complained to the council, and Beaglehole responded that it was imprecise to use the word “all” when referring to health authorities around the world.

The evidence is strong for the benefits of fluoridation but Beaglehole did go too far in claiming on TV every health authority in the world recommended fluoridating water.

The council recommended Beaglehole seek media training and said he was cautioned about expressing his views in public on the subject of community water fluoridation.

Views are fine so long as they do not mislead.

The Herald reports:

Two parents who abused their teenage daughter by forcing her to take freezing baths, hitting her and cutting her hair because they thought she was a witch have been jailed.

The Congolese refugees were both found guilty by a jury in Auckland yesterday of several charges relating to almost four years of abuse.

After being convicted, the duo told court workers they were innocent because they were performing witchcraft on the then 15-year-old girl because they believed she was possessed.

You know I would be okay if we asked people wanting to live in New Zealand if they believe in witchcraft and saying no if they do.

Stuff reports:

Jeremy Corbyn was re-elected leader of Britain’s opposition Labour Party on Saturday, ending a “coup” attempt by more moderate lawmakers who say his left-wing agenda can never deliver victory at the polls.

The veteran campaigner’s triumph, by 313,209 to 193,229 votes, cements his authority over the deeply divided party and will fuel his drive to turn Labour further to the left – a move many of his colleagues say will see them out of power and allow the ruling Conservatives free rein to set Britain’s divorce from the EU. 

This is excellent news. Theresa May will govern as Prime Minister until at least 2025 I would say/

Newshub reports:

We’ve got a Minister for Women, so why not a Minister for Men?

That’s what ACT Party leader David Seymour wants to know – or better still, he wants all of what he calls “demographic ministers” to be scrapped.

“I think it’s wrong to have ministers exist purely for a particular type of person. I actually think that all ministers should be working for all New Zealanders,” he says.

It comes off the back of huge criticism of the Minister for Women, Louise Upston, for not directly addressing the Chiefs stripper scandal.

“Men are doing worse than women in just about every imaginable social statistic,” Mr Seymour says.

“If you’re seriously saying that being higher in suicide statistics, higher in imprisonment rates, higher in mental health statistics and lower in educational attainment for men are not worth addressing, but income differential for women is worth addressing, then I don’t think you’re part of a 21st century debate about gender.”

An interesting perspective. Would you take lower wages in exchange for living longer?

Stuff reports:

US President Barack Obama has hit back strongly at rising anti-immigration sentiment across America, Europe, and Australia, as a new poll found half of all Australians want to ban Muslim immigration.

“This crisis is a test of our common humanity – whether we give in to suspicion and fear and build walls, or whether we see ourselves in another,” he said.

It came as an Essential Research poll released on Wednesday found 49 per cent of Australians support a ban on Muslim immigration, including 60 per cent of Coalition voters, 40 per cent of Labor voters and 34 per cent of Greens voters.

That’s sad but not surprising. As Islamic terrorist attacks become more and more regular, people become more and more scared.

The most common reasons for wanting a ban were fears over terrorism, and a belief that Muslim migrants do not integrate into society or share Australian values. The poll was first conducted in early August and then repeated to ensure it was not a rogue.

Some Muslim migrants do not integrate, while some do. The best policy would to focus more strongly on prospective migrants as individuals and judging them on their ability to integrate – which is more than just religion.

The Essential poll, with a typical sample size of more than 1000, came a week after Senator Hanson’s incendiary first speech in the Senate in which she proposed that Australia halt Muslim immigration and stop building mosques and Islamic schools.

The poll found a high level of support for the One Nation firebrand, with two-thirds of voters agreeing she talks about issues other politicians are afraid of tackling, and 48 per cent endorsing a national debate about Muslim immigration.

 Lewis said the results showed mainstream political parties needed to re-engage with “outsider politics” as disenfranchised voters flocked to the fringes.

Yep, Hansen ig going nowhere but up.

The Hamilton News reports:

Hamilton News spoke to four former Hamilton mayors to get their two cents worth on the upcoming local body elections. Ged Cann got their take on the issues they think are important and asked who their pick for the city’s new mayor is.

Always interesting to see the views of former Mayors who know what the job is about.

MARGARET EVANS 1989-1998

“Chris Simpson is the one talking about changing the political structure of the council to bring back some direct responsibility to councillors such as an infrastructure committee. That’s a really really positive idea.” …

“The jury is still out … I’m certainly leaning towards Chris Simpson and I am also leaning towards those candidates who are strongly in view of a new approach to what’s happening.”

RUSS RIMMINGTON 1998-2001

Top pick for mayor:

“My top pick would be Rob Pascoe. I think he has high integrity, he has a good professional brain. I think he will surround himself with talented people in the chairs.

“I think other councillors will respect him and staff will respect him as well. He’s out of PriceWaterhouse, it shouldn’t necessarily be a good numbers man but without a strong financial base a company or a council doesn’t run effectively.”

Mr Rimmington’s second pick was Andrew King.

“Poor Julie has had six years of cleaning up the mess of Claudelands and the V8s. I think Andrew – and I’ve heard him speak, he’s looking at social housing, he’s looking at key infrastructure, he’s trying to spread the cost not only on council but on other key stakeholders.”

Third pick was Chris Simpson.

“He’s got good experience in central government, good links to central government for cross funding, and Hamilton has had a very poor relationship with central government for many years. I would like him to have at least one term on Council – that’s his Achilles heel.”

DAVID BRAITHWAITE 2001-2004

“There’s a new man who has come into the city, he’s been in the city for a long time, he’s not currently involved in the political scene in Hamilton – his name is Chris Simpson.”

Mr Braithwaite said Mr Simpson would make an “appropriate and positive” Mayor.

“He’s had significant experience in Wellington in the parliamentary environment, he comes across as a man who would try and get people working together, and that’s what the city needs. What the city does need is some new blood.”

So two of the three ex Mayors picked Chris Simpson, and he was in the top three for the third. That’s impressive endorsements.

There are seven candidates for Hamilton Mayor, after Julie Hardaker retired. Julie has done a really good job these last six years and Hamilton needs a Mayor who can be innovative.

The Online Media Standards Authority has ruled:

An article published by Television New Zealand (TVNZ) on its ONE News Now website alleged Complainant R. Thompson, specifically advised his clients to avoid countries with “information sharing agreements” with New Zealand and instructed his clients to avoid any countries that might enter into double tax agreement with New Zealand. …

The Committee ruled the reference to “specifically advised” was misleading as it was not adequately substantiated and was in breach of Standard 1 Accuracy and was Upheld.

This article published by TVNZ was one they specifically paid for, and how has been found to be misleading.

The Complaints Committee considered the Complainant should have been contacted prior to the article being published. It held as this had not occurred, the article lacked a reasonable range of viewpoints and the Complainant was not treated fairly, in breach of Standard 2 Balance and Standard 3 Fairness.

There is a history here of not giving the subjects of pieces an ability to comment prior to publication.

So overall the piece by Hager, and published by TVNZ was found to be inaccurate, unbalanced and unfair.

The Herald reports:

After almost two decades of relentless decline caused by piracy and falling prices, the music business is enjoying a fragile recovery thanks to the growth of paid streaming services like Spotify and Apple Music.

The U.S. industry is on pace to expand for the second straight year- the first time that’s happened since the CD sales peaked in 1998 and 1999. Retail spending on recorded music grew 8.1 percent to $3.4 billion (NZ$4.64 billion) in the first half of 2016, according to a midyear report from the Recording Industry Association of America that was obtained by Bloomberg News.

The credit goes to streaming – Internet services that give listeners commercial-free access to millions of songs for a monthly fee, or for free if they’re willing to hear ads. U.S. streaming revenue grew 57 percent to $1.6 billion ($2.19 billion) in the first half of 2016 and accounted for almost half of industry sales.

“It feels like the market is slowly recovering after years of being in crisis and shrinking,” said Zach Katz, the head of U.S. operations at BMG Rights Management GmbH, a record label and music publisher whose artists have included M.I.A. and Blink 182. “It’s absolutely a step in the right direction.”

This is good news and shows that eventually an industry does adjust the Internet breaking their old business model.

Last Legs, premiering at Circa, is a Roger Hall production and will appeal to fans of his work.

It is set in an upmarket Auckland rest home, called The Cambridge. It has a clever well designed set with four balconies where various residents can sit and talk, plus a common area in front of them.

You first meet Trish played by Donna Akersten. A member of the Residents’ Committee and former real estate agent. She likes to think she is the top dog around there, plus she is very keen to earn money from refferals. Her past as a real estate agent is very believable as she retains a keen focus on commissions and somewhat fake camaraderie.

Her husband Garry, played by Stephen Gledhill is also a former real estate agent, and on the Residents’ Committee. They seem very well matched, as they over-share details of how they got together using empty homes they were selling.

Also well established in the rest home is Edna (Jane Waddell), a lefty greenie cancer survivor with a strong streak of anti-establishment-ism which brings her into conflict with Trish and Garry. She bounces from one cause to another, while also having some poignant moments around her health.

The other established resident is the sex siren Kitty. A former actress who is not really retired, more installed there by her lover who recently died. She is a free spirit, and enjoys attracting the men – to a point.

The final two cast members are husband and wife Angus and Helena. Angus, played by Ray Henwood, is a retired professor and Helena (Catherine Downes) is his younger wife, an art snob. He did not want to move here, but she insisted as he is becoming more frail. She resents having moved in at a relatively young age herself. But she says this is what happens when a student sleeps with her lecturer then marries him.

Part of the play focuses on the banal yet funny tensions between the residents in arranging events for the rest home. The more interesting part is when you learn that Angus and Kitty once had an affair – something unknown to everyone else.

The play is somewhat unusual in that most (my estimate) of the dialogue is between characters and the audience (we are prospective tenants) explaining back stories, rather than between the characters themselves. It was a useful technique to set the scene, but I think it was somewhat overdone.

As with all Roger Hall plays, it was funny and enjoyable. But it wasn’t one of his best productions. There were no side splitting moments, and the plot developments were fairly predictable.

Possibly it was the decision to have no particularly sympathetic characters that had an impact. The real estate agents are ghastly, as is the art snob wife. The activist is annoying, with touches of humour. The professor and his former paramour are more sympathetic but not overly loveable. It could have benefited perhaps with a couple more characters, whom the audience could get behind.

Rating – *** (out of five)

Paul Waldman writes at The Washington Post:

Donald Trump spent more than a quarter-million dollars from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits that involved the billionaire’s for-profit businesses, according to interviews and a review of legal documents.

So his charity paid money to settle business disputes of Trump’s. That makes him the beneficiary of the charity, not the donor to it.

In case you haven’t been following the story of the Trump Foundation, that last part is critical: Trump has given zero dollars to the Trump Foundation since 2009. Instead, he gets other rich people to donate money to the foundation, and he then uses their money for self-aggrandizement and sometimes self-enrichment. As Fahrenthold has documented, Trump has used foundation money for things like buying a six-foot-tall painting of himself, sometimes at charity events held at Mar-a-Lago, where he charges the charity for use of the facility, which means that not only is he not making the donation for which everyone is praising him, he’s actually making money on the deal. And then of course there’s the conveniently timed, illegal $25,000 donation from the foundation to Florida attorney general Pam Bondi, which was followed quickly by her decision not to join a lawsuit charging Trump with fraud over Trump University.

The Trump Foundation is basically a scam where he puts no money in himself, gets others to donate, and then often spends the money on things that either benefit him or make him look good.

I’m not a historian, but I’m beginning to think that Trump may be a singular figure not only in the history of American politics but in the history of American commerce as well. There seems to be no area of his extremely complex financial life that is not infected by double-dealing, public lies, broken promises, or outright fraud.

His foundation seems to be nothing more than a scam. He hires contractors to work on his buildings, then refuses to pay them, knowing they don’t have the resources to fight him and will probably accept pennies on the dollar, sometimes destroying small businesses in the process. He creates one swindle after another, like Trump University, the Trump Institute, and the Trump Network, suckering struggling people with promises of instant wealth. He sues people who criticize him, knowing that he has no case but just hoping to punish them with legal fees.

And he won’t release his tax returns. Mainly I suspect they would reveal that he is in fact not anywhere near as wealthy as he claims, and also he pays almost no tax.

Republicans and many journalists practically lost their minds when we discovered that an executive at the Clinton Foundation had encouraged Clinton to meet with major donors to the foundation when she was secretary of state — even though those donors were people like a Nobel Peace Prize winner and the Crown Prince of Bahrain, a critical U.S. ally. Say what you will about that, but there’s never been even a hint that the Clintons used their foundation, which has done a tremendous amount of good work around the world, for personal gain. Now think what the reaction would be if we discovered that Clinton used her foundation’s money to pay off personal lawsuits. It would take about twelve seconds for outraged Republicans to demand an indictment and nervous Democrats to start calling for her to pull out of the race.

I think the Clinton Foundation has been used to buy access and influence, which is why some donors have donated. Clinton deserves criticism for a number of issues around the Foundation. But there is no doubt it has spent those donations on genuine causes which has helped many. It is not comparable to using a charity to pay off your own legal disputes.

The Herald reports:

A Frenchman whose attempts to hitchhike out of the West Coast landed him in court says New Zealand should be renamed “Nazi Zealand”.

Cedric Claude Rene Rault-Verpre, 27, appeared in Greymouth District Court this morning charged with wilful damage after his disastrous four-day mission to get out of Punakaiki. Rault-Verpre pleaded guilty to damaging road signs.

Punakaiki is between Westport and Greymouth and has a fair amount of traffic. If he didn’t get any lifts in four days, then maybe he was doing something wrong. Coasters are pretty friendly.

Also who spends four days in the same spot trying to hitchhike? Seriously. He could have walked to Greymouth in 10 hours. Or caught a bus.

Regardless of his claims around waiting four days for a lift, why damage some road signs because no one picks you up?

Outside court, Rault-Verpre said New Zealand should be renamed “Nazi Zealand”.

Asked how long he had been in this country he replied, “too long – way too long – and I’ve been to 80 countries”.

I’m wondering if his attitude is why no one picked him up. He is not the victim here.

The Herald reports:

Treasury has painted an improving picture of the beleaguered convention centre project.

Yesterday it released a performance report on major Government projects throughout New Zealand, including four of the city’s anchor projects.

The convention centre has moved from a red rating to a much-improved amber delivery confidence rating from its previous report.

But Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration Gerry Brownlee was yesterday scathing of the Treasury analysis, in spite of the improved report, saying it was done by people who “fluff about the place pontificating”.

He said he had little respect for the reports or their analysis.

“It is a rating system Treasury do for themselves,” he said.

Mr Brownlee has blasted previous Treasury reports as “disrespectful”, calling a November report on anchor projects “utter tripe”.

I think these comments are inappropriate.

It is fine for Ministers to disagree with advice and say things like “Treasury are looking at the project through a narrow set of parameters and I think when you look at the overall project it is fine”.

But this comes close to a personal attack on the staff who produced the report, and Gerry also goes over the top in attacking the reports as somethign Treasury do for themselves. Treasury do these reports because their Minister and/or the Cabinet decided they should be produced. It is not something they are producing as some sort of rogue agency.

As I said at the beginning, it is fine to disagree with advice and analysis, but Ministers should not shoot the messengers.

A lot of people have asked me about voting for the Wellington Mayoralty and how best to vote to get the Mayor they want. As Wellington uses STV this is an important question as beyond doubt the election will be decided on second, third, fourth preferences etc.

Now the technically correct answer is to rank the eight candidates in order from 1 to 8 based on who you think is best to worst. That is what I will do as I have managed to form opinions on all eight candidates.

But you don’t have to rank all eight, and in many cases it is unnecessary. What is important is the rankings between the candidates who can win. So if you aren’t sure whether to say rank Johnny Overton higher or Keith Johnson higher, then don’t worry – you don’t need to (even though you can).

Looking at the eight candidates, two are not currently even on (a) Council – Overton and Johnson. They have no realistic chance of winning, so you don’t need to really worry about ranking them. Because it is almost impossible they will be one of the last two candidates remaining when all preferences are allocated.

The same tends to go for Helene Ritchie and Andy Foster. They’ve both been on Council since the 1970s and 1990s respectively and I can’t see any scenario where they could win, or be one of the last two or even three. You can rank them if you want, if you especially support or oppose them, but it almost certainly won’t matter.

My view is that the election preferences will come down to a choice between Justin Lester and one of Nick Leggett, Jo Coughlan and Nicola Young.

Now if you back Justin Lester, then just rank him number one. To some degree your other preferences aren’t that important. He is very likely to be one of the final two, so his preferences will not get redelegated.

Now if you don’t back Justin Lester, what do you do?

What is important is that you rank Leggett, Coughlan and Young with your top three preferences, above him – the safest option is to rank them 1, 2, 3 or 2, 3, 1 or 3, 1, 2 – assign those three your top three ranks. One of them will go into the final preference round against Lester. You don’t need to rank Lester or any of the other candidates. You can if you want to, but what is important is those three candidates are ranked higher than Lester and given your top three rankings (if you do not want Lester to win). It means that as two of them get eliminated their support consolidates behind the remaining candidate.

As for who between those three you should make 1st, 2nd and 3rd – well that is up to you. They all have some good strengths and I’d be happy with any of them as Mayor. Rank the one you think is best 1, second best 2 and third best 3. But if you do not want a Labour Party controlled Mayor, the important thing is they get your top three rankings.

Now if you want Lester that is fine, and as I say it is easy – make him 1. I won’t be ranking him in my top three because he is a party controlled candidate. If he was an independent I’d be far more likely to give him a higher rating. I have no problems with Justin Lester personally and in fact have appreciated some things he has done such as calling me to discuss issues around e-voting when the Council was about to vote on it.

But by standing as a Labour candidate he is bound by the party rules to vote in accordance with the local Labour caucus. That means if Labour gets two Councillors as well as the Mayor, a Labour Mayor is constitutionally obliged to vote as his two colleagues instruct him. He can’t vote based on what he genuinely thinks is best for Wellington. I don’t support party tickets for Council where Councillors are bound to vote in accordance with their private caucuses. Fine to have a ticket with some core policies you agree on, but I want Councillors and a Mayor who are free agents.

Anyway regardless of who you support, make sure you return your ballot papers and vote. Who get elected does matter. Different Mayors and Councillors will mean different decisions on how much your rates increases, and what they are spent on.

Stuff reports:

The lucrative tobacco black market continues to fuel dairy and service stations burglaries in Canterbury with police investigating several new thefts.

A BP station in Sawyers Arms Rd, Bishopdale, and Z Waikuku in North Canterbury have both been broken in to in the past few days. 

Offenders entered the stores and targeted several items including cigarettes and cash.

There was a single offender in each incident and no weapons were involved. Both service stations were closed at the time. 

In August, it was revealed there had been several dairy robberies thought to be connected to the tobacco black market. 

Detective Senior Sergeant Mike Ford said at the time that he believed many of the robbers were stealing to order rather than for personal use.

“[Tobacco] is a very valuable commodity. They [the robbers] are taking as much as they can.”

Increasing excise tax on tobacco has overall been a positive move, as smoking rates drop. However there is a limit to how far you can go before the adverse effects of the higher taxes overwhelm the benefits. Just taxing the supply, while there is still considerable demand, does benefit the black market. We saw the same with prohibition of alcohol in the 1930s.

Phil Quin blogs:

No secret I’m supporting Nick Leggett, so I was listening to the Newstalk ZB mayoral candidates debate this morning, and one exchange stood out. When asked about the Living Wage, Labour’s candidate Justin Lester said he supported it because he wants to support “the little people”.

Excuse me?

Who on earth does he have in mind?

Moderator Tim Fookes asked him to clarify.

Cleaners and security staff, Lester explained.

So, cleaners and security guards, as long as you know you are the little people and people like Justin Lester are here to save you, you have nothing to worry about. What condescending, messianic bullshit. 

In case you think Quin is making this up, you can listen to audio below.