The Herald reports:

Ridesharing service Uber could be banned if it fails to comply with safety laws, Transport Minister Simon Bridges says.

While this was not the Government’s preferred option, passenger safety was paramount, Bridges said today.

Speaking to reporters at Parliament, Bridges said Uber was mocking the law by not properly checking its drivers’ criminal and medical histories.

“Clearly it’s an important matter. Clearly it’s one where we want the law enforced and not mocked, as it frankly is being by some at the moment.”

I’m a fan of Uber, and have supported them in wanting to reduce regulatory barriers to them. And in fact the Government’s recent review gave them 80% of what they wanted. It was very friendly towards allowing innovation.

Uber decided to move from trying to change the law to ignoring the law. This is regrettable. I agree with them that the driver checks should be cheaper and quicker. Absolutely. But that is not the same as saying you should just ignore the law.

They are doing damage to their brand. Their behaviour is even polarising their drivers.

For the first year of using Uber every driver I had loved Uber and raved about the company. In the last few months a growing number of drivers say they are appalled with Uber (even though they drive with it). Their drivers have gone from being ambassadors to merely contractors.

A huge thumbs up to the Wellington City Council who yesterday resolved:

Agree that Council reaffirms its position, following extensive consultation, for licensing in Wellington City – being to allow the District Licensing Committee to operate under the provisions as determined by Central Government in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 without the guidance of a Local Alcohol Policy, (including within the default national trading hours for on and off license premises.

This is the Council asking Police to abide by position that the Council has arrived at following extensive consultation

I’ve blogged many times on how the Police have been abusing their position and threatening license holders with objections unless they agree to the trading hours and one way policies the Police want.

This is and remains constitutionally repugnant. The job of the Police is to enforce the laws, not to make them. We don’t live in Mega City One with Judge Dredd. The Parliament of New Zealand and the Wellington City Council have resolved what the licensing hours shall be, and whether a one way policy should be required. They both determined no. Yet the Police have been trying to overturn this, which is an abuse of their special position. Their advice on alcohol licenses should be confined to how well the licensee has complied with the law.

Stuff reports:

Wellington City Council has given a stern warning to police about their attempts to change bar hours, reminding them that 4am closing means just that.

Councillors made the public declaration on Wednesday,  against a backdrop of rising tensions between the police and bar owners in the Courtenay Place party zone.

Wellington adheres to the national “default” trading hours for on-licence premises set by the Government, which allow bars and restaurants to sell alcohol until 4am.

But some bars owners believe the police are trying to set new rules by opposing CBD liquor licences unless bars agree to more restricted trading hours.

Councillor Paul Eagle, who chairs the community, sport and recreation committee, said there was a feeling the District Licensing Committee was being “pressured” by police and health officials, who were not “acting in the spirit” of the laws as they were currently written.

The Police and health officials have decided they they should determine the law, not elected officials.

Wellington area commander Inspector Chris Bensemann said there was little point in the council “sitting on its hands”,  as it was plain to see there was a problem with drunk and disorderly people in Courtenay Place in the early hours.

I understand the Police showed a video to the Council of Courtenay Place at midnight. It didn’t show a single fight, but as Deputy Mayor Justin Lester pointed out, just a lot of people having fun. The Police responded saying they edited out the fight scenes!!! Sure.

“There needs to be an acceptance that there is alcohol harm in our community,” he said. “We have to move forward with this, and we have to be courageous. If we just throw our hands up in the air and say it’s too hard, that would be sad.”

Of course there is alcohol harm in our community. But the aim of the law is not to eliminate harm, but reduce it – balancing that out with the huge amount of enjoyment people get from being able to have a drink at home, or on town.

If the aim is to eliminate harm, then we’d have a speed limit of 20 km/hr. We’d ban sausages. We’d ban people doing home maintenance etc.

Wellington Mayor Celia Wade-Brown asked Bensemann to back up his claim with statistics, saying the council preferred to base its decisions on good data.

But Bensemann said statistics tended to be overanalysed. His officers were on the ground in Courtenay Place, and did not need stats to tell them that too many people were getting drunk and “looking for trouble”.

This is the Police admitting they had no data or evidence to back up their decision.  I understand the Mayor several times asked for evidence and they got nothing from the Police. That is because of course almost every survey done shows youth drinking dropping, drink driving dropping etc.

Yes there are still a minority of people who cause trouble and harm. But public policy is about getting the balance right. The Police don’t like the decisions made by the democratically elected law makers, so they have been trying to impose their own policy on license applicants.

“Believe me, it is real,” he said. “Alcohol harm in Courtenay Place is real. I regularly experience it, and my staff experience it, every weekend.”

Wade-Brown replied that the council preferred to base its decisions on solid data.

Go Celia!

The fact that the Council voted unanimously to slap down the Police should ring warning bells to the Police Commissioner.  His Wellington team are out of control and stepping well beyond their appropriate role. The Commissioner should tell them to get into line and stop trying to usurp law making from the Council and Parliament.

The Washington Post reports:

Venezuela is stuck in a doom loop that’s become a death spiral.

Its stores are empty, its people are starving, and its government is to blame. It has tried to repeal the law of supply and demand, and, in the process, eliminated any incentive for businesses to actually sell things. The result is that the country with the largest oil reserves in the world now has to resort to forced labor just to try to feed itself.

Their problems:

Now, at first, the regime was just spending more than it had, but eventually, after oil’s vertiginous drop, this became more than it could borrow as well. So it did what every bankrupt government does: It printed the money it needed. Which is why inflation went from 19 percent in 2012 to, the IMF estimates, 720 percent this year, and a projected 2,200 percent the next.

This is what the Greens call quantitative easing, as advocated by Russel Norman.

Venezuela, for is part, has resorted to a tried-and-untrue strategy for dealing with all these price increases. That’s pretending they haven’t happened. The government tells businesses what they’re allowed to charge

A popular socialist idea.

Something Venezuela’s government hasn’t quite managed to figure out, though, is that trying to force companies to sell at a loss means they won’t sell anything at all. It’s better to make nothing than to lose something.

But they have succeeded at stopping businesses make horrible profits.

That’s why Venezuela has had shortages of everything from food to beer tomedical supplies and even toilet paper. About the only thing it is well-supplied with are lines, to the point that it’s had to limit how many of them people areallowed to join.

So you have to queue to join the queue!

So what do you do when businesses refuse to sell things at a loss? Easy. You blame them, and then do so yourself. That, at least, is what Venezuela’s government did when it took over toilet paper factories in 2013, and what it’s threatened to do with the country’s top food and beer brewing company today.

Nationalisation – another popular socialist policy.

Now, there are two things you need to remember about Venezuela. The first is that if it can get worse, it will get worse. And the second is that it can always get worse. In this case, that means that it might not be long until we look back at all of this as the good old days. How in the name of five-hour long grocery lines is that possible? Well, Venezuela’s government might be reaching the point where it can’t coerce people economically, but only physically. After all, itbarely has enough money to even be able to print money anymore. So it can’t buy people off anymore. It has to bully them instead. Indeed, the army has started forcing butchers to sell food at a 90 percent loss, and the government has said it can force anyone to, um, take a break from their job and work for at least two months growing food instead. Amnesty International has said this is tantamount to “forced labor,” which is just a polite way of describing what’s very close to modern-day slavery.

The socialist revolution is complete.

Ports of Auckland has announced:

Ports of Auckland will shortly start work to partially automate its container terminal.  It will be the first New Zealand port and only the third straddle carrier terminal in the world to automate. …

 

As a result of automation, around 50 stevedoring roles could go.  As the project will take about three years to implement, we will endeavour to manage the reduction in roles through a combination of staff turnover, retirement and retraining.

Well that should mean fewer strikes!

Shalom Kiwi blogs:

The news broke yesterday that the director of the Gaza branch of World Vision, Mohammed El-Halabi, was arrested by the Israeli internal secret service for allegedly diverting tens of millions of dollars of World Vision funds to the terrorist arm of Hamas.

It is reported that during the investigation El-Halabi admitted that he had been a member of Hamas since his youth, had undergone military training and had been commissioned by Hamas to infiltrate World Vision. He also reportedly admitted that his father, Halil El-Halabi, who had served as head of UNWRA’s educational institutions in the Gaza Strip for years, was a member of Hamas and used his position as a UN employee to help the terrorist organization.

El-Halabi allegedly employed a sophisticated and systematic apparatus for transferring 60% of World Vision’s annual budget for Gaza to Hamas – approximately US$7.2 million per year. This included establishing and promoting fictitious humanitarian projects and fake agricultural associations which acted as cover for the transfer of monies to Hamas. It is alleged the funds diverted to Hamas were utilised to finance the digging of terror tunnels, the building of military bases and the purchase of weapons. Some of the money also went to pay the salaries of Hamas terrorists and, in some cases, senior Hamas terrorists took large sums of money for their own personal use. El-Halabi is also charged with regularly transferring equipment that he ordered on behalf of World Vision, supposedly for agricultural aid, to Hamas for construction of military outposts and to dig terror tunnels.

In light of the arrest, Australia announced it was suspending funding to World Vision until the investigation was complete.

I hope the NZ Government does the same. This needs to be fully investigated, which means more than an internal prove by World Vision.

Stuff reports:

A team from Nelson’s Cawthron Institute have discovered there are potentially twice then number of Hector’s dolphins in New Zealand waters than previously realised.

The findings of a three-year marine aerial survey to update the dolphin’s population and distribution show there are between 12,000 and 18,500 dolphins, almost double the last estimation of 7000. 

Hector’s dolphins are one of the world’s rarest dolphins and at only 1.4 metres long and 50 kilograms they’re also one of the smallest. The species is listed as endangered. …

Hector’s dolphins were previously thought to be a mainly inshore species, however Clement’s team found up to half the population in unprotected waters beyond four nautical miles offshore.

This makes it even more important for people to understand the difference between Hector and Maui dolphins. Maui are critically endangered and number under 100. Their Hector cousins are endangered. It is possible this new population estimate could lead to their classification changing to only vulnerable.

The Guardian reports:

South Africans have delivered a stinging rebuke to the ANC, handing the party its first major election setback since it swept to power after the end of apartheid over two decades ago.

Frustrated with a stagnant economy, a 25% unemployment rate and corruption allegations against Jacob Zuma, the president, voters in local elections turned away from the ruling party in their millions and it has been defeated in two of the three cities where it faced the strongest challenge.

The ANC is likely to claim a slim overall majority when final results are announced, but it has lost control of Port Elizabeth, an industrial city on the south coast, and Pretoria, the capital. It did manage to win narrowly in the municipality of Johannesburg, the nation’s economic hub, but failed to win an outright majority.

In the Nelson Mandela Bay area, which includes Port Elizabeth, the DA secured enough votes to promise that although they would need to govern in coalition, they would not partner with the ANC.

This is good. The true test of whether a country is a democracy is whether the government ever loses an election and the opposition get to form Government.

This is only provincial elections, but may bode well for the next parliamentary elections.

For decades the ANC has claimed an unshakeable dominance of South African politics, entering elections with an expectation of victory that critics say has contributed to stagnation and corruption.

It is good to have a spell in opposition. If Labour in NZ can’t become electable, then National should throw the 2023 election as a matter of principle.

A guest post from a reader:

Minsky, the property market and IRD failing to properly tax landlords

The Economist recently ran an article on the work of Hyman Minsky, a 20^th century economist whose work on financial collapses and their causes was really only appreciated after the 2008 global financial crisis.

Minsky’s work looked at how businesses finance themselves and how they tend to expose themselves to more and more risk as the business cycle progresses. His theory can be applied to the rental property business, which like most other businesses generates regular income and can be funded by debt. Most New Zealand landlords also have other sources of regular income, such as the salary from a permanent job, which lessens their overall risk but also encourages them to take more risk in their property business.

Minsky described three types of financing. The first type of financing, which is the least risky, he called hedge financing. This is when the loan funding the business is low enough for the business income to be sufficient to meet normal loan repayments that pay off that loan.

The second type of financing he called speculative financing, is when business income is sufficient to meet only interest on the loan. This is more risky because the business relies on the loan being rolled over to stay afloat.

The third and most risky type of financing Minsky called Ponzi financing. This is when the business income is not sufficient to meet interest on the loan or repay any principal. The business is betting that the business assets will appreciate faster than liabilities or, in the case of landlords with other income, that the eventual capital gain will more than make up for the extra money required to keep the business afloat. If the expected capital gain fails to materialise, the business becomes vulnerable. If the other income of a landlord dries up then the rental business may collapse, with a distressed mortgagee sale likely.

Landlords might make the point that as rents increase a loss making property will, after a few years, start to pay its way. That is generally true, but if you look at the current Auckland property market it might take 10 years or more for a rental property to start paying its way.

For example, three bedroom bungalows in areas like Onehunga in Auckland are now selling for around the $1  million dollar mark but can be rented out for only around $600 a week. Even if we assume the new requirement for 40% equity, the repayments on a $600,000 loan with a term of 20 years and interest rate of 5% are $911 a week. Rates, insurance and a minimal amount of maintenance will cost at least another $100 a week, leaving a shortfall of $411 a week. An interest only loan would be $577 a week so the rent would just cover that but rates can’t be avoided so the financing would be bordering on being classed as Ponzi.

If it is assumed that the rent could be increased by 5% each year and expenses also increase at 5%, it would take until year 14 (when rent would be $1,131 and expenses $189, leaving $943 a week) for the property to be cashflow positive.

If the landlord has other properties allowed to be used as equity to meet the 40% requirement and so borrows 100% of the purchase price then the financing for the particular property is hugely Ponzi. The property would not make an accounting profit until year 8 and it would not be cashflow positive until the loan was paid off after 20 years.

On average, houses are sold about every 7 years. Even if we assume the landlord purchasing the totally debt financed Onehunga bungalow holds it for double that, 14 years, the property would not generate a surplus. Losses of about $92,000 in first 7 years would offset profits of $92,000 in the second 7 years. Similarly, assuming a marginal tax rate of 33%, the property would give the landlord tax refunds totalling about $30,400 in the first 7 years which would only be completely offset if the property was held for more than a further 7 years and the landlord continued to pay down the loan.

IRD should not be allowing a tax refund to landlords of Ponzi financed (also known as negatively geared) properties, or it should be ear-marking the property to tax the gain on sale. This is because it is clear that a purpose of the purchase was to resell at a profit, and that makes it taxable. Without the expectation of a capital gain, the business case for purchasing a Ponzi financed property does not stack up, even if it is held for well over the average ownership period.

Yet IRD provide only vague and simplistic guidelines for landlords on when resale is taxable. There is no attempt at all to use the financing arrangements of rental properties to set some rules. Instead, IRD spends millions and millions of dollars investigating the most blatant breaches of the ‘purchased with intention of resale’ provision, while leaving the vast majority of landlords using Ponzi financing to effectively get a tax subsidy from the rest of us. These landlords get a tax deduction for their losses during ownership and then usually a tax free capital gain on resale. That is tax evasion but IRD can’t see the wood for the trees!

Politico reports:

The talent show, a keynote event and fundraiser the night before the nomination of presidential nominee Jill Stein and vice presidential nominee Ajamu Baraka, is a great example. Here is a party that aims to be taken seriously, whose new narrative centers on the theory that 2016 is a year of Green Party emergence. And here are their senior members, listening to open-mic poetry with lines like “Isis is a goddess, not a terrorist” and “We are gonna Banksy the big banks, see?” and ukulele songs about the unimportance of money and the comparative importance of dancing. The night ended with an off-key group karaoke version of “We are the World,” but with new lyrics: “We’re not going to go with Trump or Hill-ar-y,” those on stage sang, as the audience waved their hands wildly back and forth.

I wish this was televised.

NewstalkZB reports:

Wellington Mayoral candidate Nick Leggett appears to be public enemy number one for the Labour Party as its MPs are forbidden from associating with him.

Labour Leader Andrew Little has pulled rank, preventing MP Stuart Nash from speaking at an event where Mr Leggett was also speaking.

Mr Little said the event was for right-wingers who have routinely sought to undermine the Labour Party and it’s not right for a Labour MP to share a platform with people who do that.

So what was this event? Phil Quin explains on FB:

A mate of Nick Leggett and mine, Shane Philiips, is launching a beaut new restaurant in Auckland called White Rabbit on the Park. Shane and I have been Labour comrades and good mates for three decades, and he loves politics and elections every bit as much as NIck and me.

Shane kindly asked me along to address his inaugural Kai & Korero at the White Rabbit last Wednesday, where interested patrons can come along and chin-wag about politics; the US election on this occasion. It was en route from Saigon to Wellington, so it worked in beautifully.

So it was two old mates supporting the restaurant opening of another mate. And this is so terrible that Andrew Little bans Stuart Nash from attending. How incredibly petty.

As it happens David Shearer was there also. Will Shearer be disciplined for attending a restaurant opening and a talk on US politics?

And he’s making it clear he considers Nick Leggett, a former Labour Party member, a right-winger.

Just being more centrist that the current Labour leadership doesn’t make you a right winger. But no once more Labour seems to treat a difference of opinion as akin to heresy.

Stuff reports:

Auckland Council’s rule maker has said the council opposes 14 major Unitary Plan recommendations.

The council’s Director of Regulatory Services Penny Pirrit said the council was contesting “some aspects” of the 7000-page Unitary Plan while adopting the “vast majority” of the Independent Hearing Panel’s recommendations.

Among the plan’s elements the council objects to are the hearing panel’s recommendations around Auckland’s rural/urban boundary framework, loosening subdivision rules and abolishing the council’s “compact cities” policy and intensification rules.

They are all major areas and in pretty much every case what the staff are pushing for will mean fewer houses and hence higher house prices.

Councillors need to decide whether to respect the independent panel, or let house prices continue to increase.

The Herald further reports:

Reject the recommendation to abolish a rule requiring owners to seek iwi approval for work on their land

Council officers say reinstating this rule will enable the council to better meet its legal obligations to Maori. They say there is evidence of 2213 sites and places of value to Maori and a risk of ongoing loss and damage to sites without protection.

This is depressing. The independent panel found there was no evidence these sites were of value, and local Iwi even agreed. But politically correct Council officers know best and are trying to get the taniwha tax reinserted.

Reject the recommendation to abolish minimum-size apartments

Officers say leaving this to the Building Act does not address social or quality effects and minimum sizes will provide positive social outcomes.

The council favours minimum studio apartment sizes of 30sq m in the central city and 40sq m elsewhere.

Which means less affordable housing. If someone wants to live in a small apartment, and someone wants to build them, why should the Council stop them?

Reject the deletion of the objectives and policies to focus growth within the existing metropolitan area

Officers say the lack of specific objectives and policy would lead to little or no guidance as to where future growth should be encouraged.

Reject loosening the objectives and policies for rural subdivisions

Officers say this could lead to inappropriate rural subdivisions, loss of rural production, rural character and place extra demands on infrastructure.

This means again fewer houses.

The changes proposed by staff are not minor. They would gut large segments of the Unitary Plan and lock in house inflation.

The Council should listen to the independent experts who made up the panel and adopt the Unitary Plan unchanged.

From Backbenches:

THIS WEEK ON PRIME TV’s “BACK BENCHES”: Watch Wallace Chapman, Hayley Holt, the Back Benches Panel and special guests discuss the week’s hottest topics!

“TREASON!…TREACHEROUS IN THE EXTREME!”:  The Maori Party has declined to endorse Helen Clark’s bid for UN Secretary General. Punters, Pollies and Kiwis cried “Treason!” Winston Peters calling the move “Treacherous in the extreme!” But is the call fair? Is Helen Clark’s record on indigenous rights enough to preclude her from heading the United Nations? Is speaking out against Helen Clark’s bid treasonous? Is it okay to speak out against Kiwis on the world stage or is it our duty to hold ourselves to account? And what is our current record with indigenous rights like?

TITANIUM GLASS CEILING?: The head of Saatchi & Saatchi Kevin Roberts has resigned after his comments about women in the workforce. Roberts summed up women’s lack of ambition as women are happier than men, “Their ambition is not a vertical ambition; it’s this intrinsic, circular ambition to be happy.” Kevin Roberts wasn’t concerned by the lack of women in leadership roles, are you? How do we ensure gender equality in the workforce? And in paycheck?

AN APPLE A DAY:  They say an apple a day keeps the doctor away which is good because visits to the GP are rising. A national health survey in 2015 showed some 500,000 Kiwis adults are skipping out on GP visits due to cost. Should there be an overhaul of the current system so those who need assistance paying fees or need to be enrolled in VLCA (very low cost access) practices get the help they need?

There are two ways to get in on the political pub action:

First, you can join the live audience in Wellington’s iconic Backbencher Pub on Wednesday, 10^th of August at 6pm. Filming begins around 6:20pm.

Or watch us that night on PRIME TV at 10:30pm!

Plus, Follow us on Facebook (BackBenchesTV) or on Twitter @BackBenchesTV.

Our Panel: Labour MP David Cunliffe, Maori Party Co-Leader Marama Fox, and National MP Jono Naylor.

Not only is Phil Goff not campaigning using Labour Party red, but he is using what appears to be the exact shade of blue National uses.

Justin Lester in Wellington is also refusing to use Labour red despite being an official Labour candidate. He uses yellow. Even more telling is he is calling residents and not identifying himself as the Labour candidate. One voter even asked him outright if he wasn’t the Labour candidate and they say his response was “That’s not really the point”

It is the point when you are constitutionally bound to vote in accordance with the Labour Councillors on Council.

You know a brand is toxic when people won’t use it or even worse try to hide it!

The Whakatane Beacon reports:

Mr Ball, a tertiary tutor who has been at Waiariki for three months, said he thought the compulsory drug testing was a positive for many reasons – for potential employers and the students themselves.

He said potential employers were more open to offering work experience and for the students it was a sense of pride that they could accomplish something and work toward a higher goal.

The institute began compulsory drug testing of all trades programme applicants earlier this year.

Waiariki regional development manager Greg Brimmer said at Whakatane those trade programmes were in the automotive, construction, agriculture and horticulture fields.

Of 17 students enrolled in the horticulture course for semester one, only two were clean, Mr Brimmer said.

15 out of 17 failed the drug test. Wow.

He said none of those students wanted to re-take the drug test, which meant the class had to be cancelled that semester. In semester two 16 students are enrolled and will take the drug test this week. Mr Brimmer expected most would pass.

So the 15 who chose to not re-take the drug test are now doing what I wonder?

The Guardian reports:

The International Paralympic Committee is set to do what its Olympic counterpart did not and ban Russia outright from its Games later this month, the Observer has learned.

In the wake of the publication of Professor Richard McLaren’s report that revealed jaw-dropping details of systemic doping in Russia, the IPC provisionally suspended Russia from the Paralympics.

It is understood that after gathering further evidence from McLaren and giving the Russian Paralympic Committee the opportunity to make its case, a provisional decision has been made. The IPC is to announce its decision at a press conference in Rio on Sunday.

The IPC board met the Russians in Bonn on Wednesday to consider its written and oral arguments in a three-hour meeting. Barring a last minute change of heart, the Russian Paralympic Committee is likely to be banned on the basis that McLaren’s report proved that the Russian system was so compromised it could not be trusted.

McLaren, who discovered systemic doping across most Olympic sports over a period of four years as well as 35 “disappearing positives” from Paralympic disciplines, this week accused the International Olympic Committee of misinterpreting his findings.

The IPC has put the IOC to shame.

Dana Millbank writes:

Some are comforted to know this election ends in 95 days. But a Trump loss in November — which seems increasingly likely — could be only slightly less destructive than a Trump victory. At best, his followers would regard the Clinton administration as illegitimate from Day One and use whatever legal means they can to prevent government from functioning. At worst, they will conclude that their white-male dominated America is lost forever — and take extra-legal measures to protect themselves.

Americans take for granted peaceful transfers of power. But if the losing side declares the government illegitimate and talks of bloodbaths, something else could occur.

Sixteen years ago, after the contentious 2000 recount, Al Gore gave a gracious concession speech that invoked Stephen Douglas’s words to Abraham Lincoln: “Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism. I’m with you, Mr. President, and God bless you.”

“This is America. Just as we fight hard when the stakes are high, we close ranks and come together when the contest is done,” Gore said. “We will stand together behind our new president.”

Can anybody imagine Trump saying those words after a Hillary Clinton victory?

No. I am no Gore fan, but his concession after the Supreme Court decision was the act of a patriot that put the country first.

Could one imagine Trump conceding if he had won the popular vote and the electoral college count came down to court rulings? He never would.

Even if Clinton wins by ten million votes and 150 electoral college votes, it is hard to imagine him conceding that he lost fair and square. He would claim the election was rigged.

Stuff reports:

New Zealand tears flowed on Rio’s Deodoro Stadium as their Olympic women’s sevens rugby dream was shattered by a powerhouse Australian side.

Tournament favourites Australia won the gold medal with a 24-17 win over New Zealand in a final tinged with controversy, but won by the better team. It meant silver medals for New Zealand, four and a half years after their campaign began for sevens’ first Olympic appearance under coach Sean Horan.

New Zealand were down and out at 24-5, and scored two late tries to narrow the gap when the game was all over. Portia Woodman crossed for her 10th try of the tournament on the stroke of fulltime, then sank to her knees and broke down in tears as the Australians celebrated wildly.

A great come back but not quite enough. Still a great effort to get the silver medal.

The NY Times reports:

In an effort to appeal to Palestinians ahead of hotly contested elections, the party of President Mahmoud Abbas listed one of its main achievements as having “killed 11,000 Israelis.”

The party, Fatah, made the incendiary claim on Tuesday in an Arabic-language post on one of its official Facebook pages.

“For the argumentative … the ignorant … And for those who do not know history,” begins the Facebook post, “The Fatah movement killed 11,000 Israelis.”

And people wonder why Israel is sceptical of the belief that they’ll get peace in exchange for land.

I’ve blogged the latest Newshub Reid Research at Curia. It projects NZ First would hold the balance of power.

“You cannot carry on forever squeezing the productive bit of the economy in order to fund an unprecedented engorgement of the unproductive bit.” 

– Daniel Hannan

The quote of the week is brought to you by the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union. To support the Union’s campaign for lower taxes and less government waste, click here.

Stuff reports:

There is more bad blood over the Wellington mayoralty after a Labour MP was told to pull out of a speaking engagement alongside mayoral candidate Nick Leggett.

Napier MP Stuart Nash had been billed as a guest speaker along with Leggett and blogger Phil Quin, who was seen as a flag bearer for the right wing of the Labour party till he resigned from the party in protest at its campaign targeting house buyers with Asian-sounding names. 

But guests at the event were told that Nash was no longer speaking after Labour leader Andrew Little intervened because Leggett was a former party member running against Labour’s hand picked candidate, Justin Lester.

The event was to mark the opening of a new Auckland pub and billed as a talkfest about the US election.

This is incredibly petty.

If it was a an event in Wellington where Leggett is standing, I could understand.

But it was a talk in Auckland on the US election.

Leggett, currently Porirua mayor, is standing as an independent after resigning his Labour Party membership because of party rules that he could not run against a Labour endorsed candidate.

Little confirmed he spoke to Nash after seeing a flyer advertising the triple billing and told him it wasn’t a good look to share a stage with Leggett and Quin.

“Nick has decided to stand for the mayoralty against a Labour endorsed candidate and Phil Quin on social media is quite vitriolic about Labour and a lot of Labour MPs. I spoke to Stu and said ‘look how do you think it would look if you’re on the platform with people who are acting against what many other Labour Party members and activist supporters are doing in other parts of the country? It’s not going to look flash’.”

Little said Nash had agreed and was happy to pull out after their talk.

Nash did not return messages.

But Leggett said he considered Little’s intervention “a bit sad”.

“It confirms the problem with Labour, and a kind of heretic hunting culture that’s crept into the party. Anybody with a different view or position is excluded or pushed out. As a Labour MP Stuart Nash would be going to forums in Napier and around the country where there are National party politicians, where there are people who have different views from him and the party and that’s the nature of politics that’s what we do. To single this one out just makes me sad really.”

It is sad.

Myself and a former President of Young Labour once set up a group in Wellington to discuss US politics and have guest speakers – The American Politics Appreciation Society.  Would Little ban that?

What about Labour MPs taking part in celebrity debates with National MPs? Also to be banned?