The Herald reports:

Alexis Tsipras was sworn in as the new Prime Minister of Greece, after his radical left-wing movement forged an unwieldy alliance with a far-right party. …

Tsipras’s party, Syriza, scored a historic victory in Greece’s election but fell short of an outright majority in the 300-seat Parliament, gaining 149 seats. While he moved quickly to arrange an awkward coalition with the Independent Greeks party, who won 13 seats, it immediately raised doubts over the longevity of the new Government.

The Independent Greeks leader claimed last month that Jews in Greek pay less tax than other citizens. So the communists have gone into alliance with an anti-semitic nationalist party. This will not end well.

Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl of the US Army a high profile captive of Haqqani terrorists in Afghanistan for five years who was then swapped by the Obama administration for five terrorists is according to NBC News going to be charged with deserting his post (before he was captured).

According to the officials, the desertion charges would be based on allegations that Bergdahl abandoned his remote outpost in June 2009 to avoid hazardous duty or important service, which are grounds for charges of desertion under the Uniform Military Code of Justice, or UCMJ. According to one senior official, Bergdahl’s actions in Afghanistan go well beyond the lesser offense of AWOL, absent without leave, because he allegedly abandoned his post “in the middle of a combat zone, potentially putting the lives of his fellows soldiers at risk.”

The charges will apparently not allege that Bergdahl left with the intent never to return. Bergdahl was reportedly captured by the Haqqani terrorist network in Pakistan. He was released in a prisoner swap for five Taliban commanders held at Guantanamo Bay in May.

Sources tell NBC News that the fact that Bergdahl was held captive may be taken into consideration when any punishment is handed out.

The New York Daily News has the biographies of the five terrorists who were swapped for Bergdahl (See the graphic in the middle of the page). I cannot see why there was any rush to release any of them. Seems a bit soft to me.

Barack Obama has some tricky questions to answer bearing in mind that Bergdahl is most likely a deserter. Also how was this guy thought to be worth five terrorists? This is definitely potentially embarrassing for the President seeing he made the release of Bergdahl a high profile event by inviting the soldiers parents to the White House.

Stuff reports:

Prime Minister John Key’s lawyer has dismissed criminal litigator Arthur Taylor’s claim that Key unlawfully won the Helensville electorate, saying there’s “no evidence to substantiate his claims”. 

Taylor, a serving prisoner with more than 150 convictions, is petitioning the court claiming Key’s election as MP for Helensville was unlawful because about 650 prisoners at Auckland Prison at Paremoremo were excluded from voting in the electorate. 

He challenged the result on the grounds that the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010 was invalid because it prevented about 8600 prisoners in the country’s jails from registering or voting.

After hearing Taylor’s arguments in the High Court at Auckland today, Key’s counsel Peter Kiely made his opening submissions this afternoon, saying there was no evidence to support Taylor’s claims. 

Taylor was not registered to vote in last year’s election, was not entitled to vote and therefore “has no standing” to challenge the Helensville result, Kiely said.  

Taylor is likely to never be released from prison. So he does this various lawsuits as a way to get out occasionally. It’s a joke electoral petition with no possibility of success.

Earlier today, Taylor argued that there was no rational reason to disqualify prisoners from voting, saying punishment wasn’t a legitimate reason, claiming it served the political interests of National to ban prisoner votes, and that the knock-on effect was that many prisoners wouldn’t bother voting once they were released from prison either. 

It doesn’t matter whether or not you think prisoners should be able to vote. The law was changed so they could not. An electoral petition should be about if the law was followed, not a way for someone to say they don’t like the law.

Taylor protested the fact he wasn’t provided a desk in court, unlike the four lawyers representing Key and the Crown, and two friends of the court, who had claimed all the available bench space in the small courtroom.  

He was instead given a desk in the prisoner’s dock for his paperwork.

Poor diddums.

Taylor is presenting his case at the three-day hearing in front of Justice Geoffrey Venning, Justice Helen Winkelmann and Justice Paul Heath despite Justice Rebecca Ellis ruling earlier in September that prisoners being denied the right to vote wasn’t inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Ac

Three days? Ridiculous.

The Herald reports:

New Zealand’s super-rich were found liable for an extra $77 million of tax in the last financial year.

The country’s most well-off have paid hundreds of millions of dollars in extra tax to Inland Revenue since it set up its high-wealth individual unit in 2003.

Those who come under the scrutiny of this IRD division must have, or be in control of, more than $50 million.

According to IRD’s investigation and advice manager Tracey Lloyd, the unit has identified 200 people who met the criteria.

Of these 200 people, 93 declared their personal income in the 2013 financial year as less than $70,000 – the point at which one is required pay the top tax rate of 33 cents in the dollar.

This is why increasing the top tax rate doesn’t increase tax revenue, but merely increases tax avoidance. The best tax system is low rates with a broad base.

ACT have borrowed a phrase (but not a policy!) from Sir Robert Muldoon and are running a competition for people to state the ay they want New Zealand.

At the Love New Zealand The Way You Want It website, you can submit a video of up to five minutes or a wirrten submission of up to 500 words saying how you would like NZ to be. The top five entries will win $500 each (and present their ideas to the ACT conference) and the overall winner wins $2,000.

Entries close on 7 February.

Some examples of what people might want are:

10 million people? More money? More dolphins, fewer rednecks? Cheaper houses? Old values? New ideas? Better careers? Finally finish off tall poppy?

My vision would be a New Zealand with no tax avoidance as the top personal and company tax rates are no greater than 25%, and with full employment due to the influx of investment.

Stuff reports:

New Plymouth police have been rapped over the knuckles by national headquarters for taking a hospitable approach to those asking for a breath test.

It was reported earlier this month that people often entered the station asking to be tested. Officers, if not too busy, were happy to oblige.

A very sensible approach, helping ensure people don’t break the law.

However, New Plymouth police have now been told their approach does not line up with national policy – and that they should stop immediately.

“While these staff have acted in good faith and with the best of intentions, there is a risk if for example someone initially passes a test, then drives and is found later to be over the limit, or is involved in a crash, which could have tragic consequences,” Central Districts Acting District Commander Inspector Mark Harrison said.

So the Police would rather cover their arse, than help people not break the law.

Harrison said the best advice to those out socialising was “to make the choice whether to drink or drive – not both.”

That is not what the law says. Who appointed them moral guardians?

Sergeant Bruce Irvine said at the time that those with any level of alcohol on their breath were advised not to drive because test results could change within minutes.

“We will always say this is here and now; if in 30 minutes you go and drive it could be different,” he said. “It’s not a get-out-of-jail free card. We advise unless you’re breathing zero it’s not worth taking the risk.”

Senior Sergeant Robbie O’Keefe said at the time that people who came in were often unsure if they were over or under and wanted to do the right thing.

If a test deterred them from driving it was a good thing, he said.

The local Police were acting very sensibly – testing those who wanted it, but warning them they should not drive anyway. A pity the Police hierarchy would rather people get arrested after the fact, than make it easy for people to make an informed decision about whether it is safe to legally drive.

The Herald reports:

An Auckland University lecturer Nigel Haworth and City Vision chair Robert Gallagher have put themselves forward to be the Labour Party’s next President.

Professor Haworth lamented in 2012 that China, India and Russia joining the global economy in the last few decades, as it has been bad for ordinary working people. Never mind the fact that it lifted hundreds of millions in those countries out of poverty and starvation.

Gallagher is an experienced campaigner and I’d say the favourite. He has strong support in Auckland. I think both will struggle to boost fundraising though, which is a real weakness for Labour currently.

The Herald reports:

The Government’s decision to lower New Zealand flags to mark the death of the King of Saudi Arabia has drawn criticism because of the kingdom’s poor human rights record.

Prime Minister John Key requested the flag on all Government and public buildings – including the Auckland Harbour Bridge and Parliament – be flown at half mast yesterday.

Writer and commentator Hamish Keith hit out at the decision on Twitter, saying; “We are flying flags at half mast in ‘respect’ for a torturing misogynist human rights flaunting autocrat – Je suis un hypocrite.”

The outrage seems to very selective. It is basically near-automatic that we do half mast flags for the death of any current head of state. In 2013 we did it for the death of Hugo Chavez, whose record on human rights was also pretty appalling. It is done not for the person, but for the country.

The Herald reports:

Auckland Mayor Len Brown has told an inner circle of friends and advisers he plans to seek re-election next year.

Sources have told the Herald that Mr Brown made the decision over the summer holiday with the support of his wife, Shan Inglis.

That’s one vote for him. Not sure he’ll get much more than that.

But rather than throw their weight behind the under-fire mayor, it is understood some supporters have told him he has no chance of winning a third term and should step aside.

They do not see any way back for Mr Brown, who has struggled in the wake of an extramarital affair and widespread criticism over management of the city’s finances.

I doubt Brown would ever come second. Maybe third.

One source said if Mr Brown does stand, he needed to start planning his campaign and fundraising. This would be more difficult at the next election, with law changes preventing mayoral candidates keeping donors’ identities secret.

More than $750,000 was raised through the “New Auckland Council Trust” for Mr Brown’s first two Super City campaigns.

Who’s going to donate money to Brown now that he can’t hide it in a trust?

On the left, Mr Brown could be replaced by his increasingly popular deputy, Penny Hulse, or Mt Roskill MP and former Labour leader Phil Goff.

Ms Hulse, who went on a health kick last year and lifted her profile outside her West Auckland base, has expressed interest in the mayoralty but said she would never stand against Mr Brown.

“Would I have a crack at the top job? I wouldn’t discount it, but there is an awful amount of water to flow under the bridge and a hell of a lot of time before the next election,” she told the Herald in October.

Yesterday, Mr Goff reiterated a statement he made before Christmas that he would consider contesting the mayoralty next year “but I don’t believe that is where my career path is currently taking me”.

I think Goff will stand. Why would he want a fourth term in Opposition?

The Herald reports:

Chancellor Angela Merkel said it was a “disgrace” that Jews in Germany faced insults, threats or violence, as she marked 70 years since the liberation of the Auschwitz death camp.

Merkel joined survivors of the former camp, created by Nazi Germany in southern Poland, for a somber and moving event in the German capital ahead of Tuesday’s anniversary.

Auschwitz is a “warning” of what people can do to each other, Merkel said, adding that the camp – the site of the largest single number of murders committed during World War II – had been an “atrocious departure” in the course of history.

She said more than 100,000 Jews have today made Germany their home but that it was “unfortunately not without cause” that some feared insult or assault.

“It’s a disgrace that people in Germany are abused, threatened or attacked when they indicate somehow they are Jewish or when they side with the state of Israel,” she said, to applause.

Merkel said the fact that synagogues and Jewish institutions had to be guarded by police was like a “stain on our country”.

Sadly this is not just a problem in Germany.  In Sweden two journalists walked around with a Star of David and a kipah.

This time it was Peter Lindgren’s turn to don a kippah and Star of David chain around his neck and head into town. The result: “He received direct threats as he walked through the city,” according to expressen.se.

Lindgren, walking with a hidden camera and microphone alongside, recorded every step. The report showed the reporter enduring verbal abuse by a man who called him a “Jewish s***” and told him to “leave.” Another person hit him and shouted “Satan Jew,” at him.

As they approached the the city’s neighborhoods with higher Muslim populations, the threats only increased. Some 20 percent of the 300,000 residents of Sweden’s third-largest city are Muslim, according to statistics.

“Then a whole gang came along to threaten the ‘Jewish’ reporter,” while occupants of neighboring homes shouted abuse at him. The broadcast caused a public storm in Sweden, with reactions by public figures, local Jewish organizations and international groups.

The clip, which was broadcast on Sweden’s national television, examined the degree of threats Malmo’s Jews face. The city is infamous for having the largest number of anti-Semitic incidents in the country, many of them perpetrated by members of the Muslim community.

According to the report, “many of [Malmo’s remaining Jews] are afraid to leave their homes; many want to leave the city and do not want their children to grow up there.”

Sadly the exodus of Jews from Europe is likely to increase.

Stuff reports:

Police are investigating a complaint from controversial columnist Rachel Stewart after a threatening hand-written message was left in her letterbox and her social media account was inundated with abusive posts.

Stewart says she has been subjected to a string of malicious messages this week, including threats to rape and kill her, following the publication of her fortnightly opinion piece in Fairfax papers, among them the Manawatu Standard, on Monday.

This week’s article, headlined “That high-pitched whining must stop”, talked about irrigation schemes, water quality, the low milk payout, workplace regulations, suicide, stress and farmers complying with the law.

However, the backlash to the article turned sinister, and Stewart says “sexist, standover tactics and personal slurs” were posted from accounts using pen-names and then circulated via Twitter by prominent members of New Zealand’s farming community. A hand-written anonymous note saying: “See we not so DumB we Don’t No where u live. Bitch.[sic]” was also delivered to Stewart’s house, prompting her to lay a complaint and for police to launch an investigation.

There is a difference between online abuse (which is rather common) and an actual note delivered to your home address which is stalkerish and scary. There is no room for such threats in our country – and it has been rightfully referred to the Police.

Stewart’s column was puerile and offensive. Dealing with the issue of farmer suicide by saying “Can’t stand the heat? Get out of the kitchen” reflects badly on her. However you don’t respond to such crap with purported threats to rape or kill, which is also entirely unacceptable.

A better response to Stewart’s column would be to invite her to come work on a farm for a month or so, and deal with getting up at 5 am seven days a week, than abusing her, and especially threatening her.

UPDATE: A commenter claims that Stewart is a former office holder of Federated Farmers. Regardless, my point stands that outreach and dialogue is preferable to abuse.

It’s the final day and in around seven hours we rediscover the joys of showers. Despite being at 3,700 metres it is sunny and warm, so we’re in shorts and just one or two layers.

Saying farewell to Horombo.

And also goodbye to my favourite trees.

It is a relatively easy day, going downhill. However we still will be hiking almost 20 kms, which will take a bit over six hours.

Nice to be back under bush for the final three hours.

And near the end some monkeys again.

Finally we’re back to where we started. Over six days we have climbed around 4,600 metres and descended the same.

We get back to the Marangu Hotel around 3 pm.

And have drinks and photos with our team – the four of us, three guides, a chef and assistant, and seven porters.

Overall the toughest physical challenge I’ve done to date, but hugely satisfying. If you’re fit and slightly masochistic, I can recommend giving it a go. But not something to do casually!

This was the end of the African trip – gorillas in Rwanda, safari in Kenya and Mt Kilimanjaro in Tanzania. All very different experiences. I’m already missing the place, and looking forward to my next trip to the continent – sadly at least a couple of years away.

The Guardian reports:

European Jewish leaders, backed by a host of former EU heads of state and government, are to call for pan-European legislation outlawing antisemitism amid a sense of siege and emergency feeding talk of a mass exodus of Europe’s oldest ethnic minority.

A panel of four prestigious international experts on constitutional law backed by the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR) have spent three years consulting widely and drafting a 12-page document on “tolerance”. They are lobbying to have it converted into law in the 28 countries of the EU.

The proposal would outlaw antisemitism as well as criminalising a host of other activities deemed to be violating fundamental rights on specious religious, cultural, ethnic and gender grounds.

These would include banning the burqa, female genital mutilation, forced marriage, polygamy, denial of the Holocaust and genocide generally, criminalising xenophobia, and creating a new crime of “group libel” – public defamation of ethnic, cultural or religious groups.

I’m against this. Unless speech against a group is of a nature that it is advocating violence or similar, then it should not be illegal.

The answer to bad speech is good speech, not banning bad speech.

Bernard Hickey writes:

I recently had the joy of watchingMonty Python and the Holy Grailfor the umpteenth time.

Among the many hilarious moments are the “knights who say Ni!”. They are a tribe who stop travellers in their tracks.

They demand sacrifices to allow people to pass. They are exceptionally good at chanting Ni! and the mere sound of the word strikes fear into all who hear it.

I laughed because I have known many knights who say Ni!

They are the people who always say no.

They know how to make submissions under the Resource Management Act to stop something happening.

They are the council officials who stop you building a deck or demand an outrageous fee to build a basement.

The modern day knights who say Ni! are the Nimbys (Not In My Back Yard) and Bananas (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) who have used the RMA and innumerable plan changes to stop things happening anywhere near them, or to force any development into such a box that it benefits the neighbours more than the occupants.

The RMA knights who say no have been a shadowy tribe until now and it’s been hard to pin much damage to the economy on them.

A great analogy.

Housing and Environment Minister Nick Smith has the Nimbys and Bananas squarely in his sights and has ammunition to argue that 25 years of knights saying no in the forest of the RMA have been damaging.

This week, he cited a study of Auckland developments to show RMA rules, delays and uncertainties added $30 billion to the cost of building and reduced new housing stock by 40,000 in the past decade.

His speech proposing a 10-point rewrite of the RMA cited numerous examples where RMA madness had stopped owners developing their properties, such as:

A medical centre had to spend $57,000 on fees and consultants to get approval for seven new bike stands costing $35 each.

Insane.

Property developer Sir Bob Jones had to consult 13 iwi and pay $4500 for a resource consent to replace a ground floor window.

A primary school had to spend $100,000 to be redesignated a secondary school, even though the buildings and grounds were not changing.

The study estimated the cost of regulations in a subdivision at up to $60,000 a house and up to $110,000 an apartment.

Smith’s plans for RMA reforms are rightly focused on improving housing supply and affordability. They are also rightly focused on stripping away the magical powers and mystique of the Nimby knights who say No! and who damage the economy and a younger generation locked out of the housing market.

We know the Greens will oppose the RMA changes. But will Labour? This could be a big test for them.

Most of the cartoons from the US have been about the  New England Patriots and the “deflate-gate scandal” or Obama’s state of the union (SOTU) speech. This weeks cartoon is about the latter.

The illusion to the President as Robin Hood refers to his idea of taxing the rich to give to the middle class. It was amusing to observe John Boehner sitting through most of the speech with look of a man who thought he was being fed rotten fish and was trying to hide the fact.

© Gary Varvel: Found at Real Clear Politics

Sadly the SOTU has become a spectacle that is nothing more than a campaign stop for the White House incumbent. It has been like this for a number of years. The Economist has an op-ed on the SOTU and reminds readers that in an earlier time for example under Nixon the speech was an effective way for the President to attempt to advance policy goals and start an intelligent policy debate on issues of the day.

For a bit of context, it is useful to revisit the reception of old state of the union addresses. I’ve been watching and reading a few by Richard Nixon who, as a Republican president from 1969 to 1974, faced some similar hurdles: an endless and dispiriting war; a mysterious and haunting foreign foe; a sluggish economy; a Congress dominated by the opposing party. Interestingly, Nixon’s speeches promoted some similar priorities.

The result was progress.

But in fact many of his ideas became policy, even with Democrats controlling the House and Senate. The new Congress that had just been sworn in that January 1971 could have found it useful to make Nixon look like a failure, with a presidential election ostensibly lurking around the corner (though two years back then were far longer in politics than they are now). But in fact they passed a lot of landmark legislation that continues to benefit Americans today.

The article ends with these words.

One can’t help but feel wistful for an era when a president’s ideas might’ve been debated on their merits, and when lawmakers took their job of making law seriously. It has become hard to remember a time when truculence wasn’t the surest route to political power, and when policies weren’t simply dismissed as “partisan” before being thrown away.

I don’t expect the current divisive mind-set in Washington DC to change anytime soon.

Australian broadcaster Ray Martin writes:

I recently snapped a shot of Sydney’s iconic Anzac Bridge, with its supersized Aussie and Kiwi statues posted like armed sentinels at the western end, in the dawn’s ethereal light.

It was part of a photo essay I’m cobbling together for April 25 this special year.

The commemoration of Gallipoli — and those first, wide-eyed Anzacs who jumped ashore — is about to wash over our collective emotions, on both sides of the ditch. In 1915 our brothers died on that godforsaken Turkish peninsula at the appalling rate of 45 Anzacs a day.

But. When I focused on the high Anzac Bridge flagpole all I could see was a fluttering Union Jack. The Southern Cross — with it’s familiar Federation Star — was somehow lost in the flag’s folds.

I smiled to myself, thinking how appropriate it was — given that most of the 10,920 Anzac boys who died at Gallipoli had fought under the Union Jack.

Or, occasionally the red Australian ensign.

The mythology — and rampant misinformation — about Australians “dying under the flag” boggles the mind. It’s just not true.

For neither of the two World Wars.

And it is the silver fern which is on most of the graves at Gallipol – our effective national symbol.

In fact the silver fern was used by our soldiers in the Boer War, and was also on the medals presented to soldiers who served in that campaign.

A commenter, Greenjacket, notes:

Are you aware that the symbol of the famous NZ Division in WW1 and WW2 was a white fern on a black background? The symbol on every NZ army vehicle and on every sign to indicate the location of a NZ unit was black square with a white silver ferm emblem. In at least two operations, NZ troops were ordered to conceal their identities by concealing their white fern on a black background symbol, and NZ troops were loathe to do so as they were so proud of it, so the Germans were able to quickly identify where the crack NZ Division was moving. When NZ soldiers identified themselves, they did so with the silver fern on a black background. The NZ Army of today proudly carries on this tradition.

History Geek also has details about the long use of the Silver Fern by the military.

Meanwhile, New Zealand (whom we condescendingly pat on the head as a bit rustic and slow in all but rugby) has decided to seize ‘the one hundred year anniversary’ of Gallipoli to launch a fair-dinkum flag debate.

Unlike us, our Anzac mates have decided it’s time to grow up and become truly independent.

“We want a new flag design”, conservative Prime Minister John Key declared, “a flag that says ‘New Zealand’, in the same way that the maple leaf says ‘Canada’ or the Union Jack says ‘Britain’. Without a word being spoken.”

(Incidentally, the Canadians ditched the Union Jack in 1965.)

Quite frankly, the Kiwis are tired of being mistaken for Australia in the sporting world, with a flag “dominated by the Union Jack in a way that we ourselves are no longer dominated by the United Kingdom”.

How refreshingly laudable is that?

It would be great indeed to have a flag that is universally recognised as representing NZ.

The Dom Post editorial:

Some of the complaining is down to professional jealousy and turf-guarding. But it has also posed important questions around passenger safety. So it is welcome that the Government will review the regulations around “small passenger services” – the umbrella term covering taxi companies and private hire outfits. Uber is classed among the latter group, which exempts it from certain lengthy rules around fares, meters, back offices, taxi licences and signage. That’s for the good – these rules simply don’t apply to Uber – and it helps the company offer lower prices than taxis.

But the classification also allows Uber more dubious advantages: no need for security cameras mandatory in most taxis; no need for “area knowledge” and language standards that many taxi drivers must meet; less onerous rules around reporting complaints.

It’s not clear why Uber should enjoy such perks. Its model is fundamentally an advance in ease-of-payment and passenger-driver matchmaking – not an advance in safety. And that is the main reason for having rules: to do what is reasonable to ensure the safety of passengers and drivers.

The security cameras were not put in to protect passengers, but taxi drivers. And they shouldn’t be mandatory anyway.

The editorial misses the key difference between Uber and taxis. With a taxi you get basically no choice as to who your driver is. With Uber you can choose your driver, and you get to see what other passengers have said about them. It is potentially a far more powerful model for safety and quality.

It is like Trade Me – your reputation is vital. Get some bad reviews, and people won’t trade with you.

So the Dom Post misses the point when it says Uber has perks because it does not need to meet taxi standards. Taxis gets regulated by their companies and the state. Uber drivers effectively get regulated by passengers – if your driver gets you lost, you’ll give them a bad review.

The Press takes a more enlightened approach:

It is, however, one of the most disruptive businesses of all those businesses whose disruption is based on technology and it has aroused fierce resentment, among taxi companies in particular. In some countries it has been banned.

Taxi companies say Uber has an unfair advantage because although it operates as a taxi service it is not subject to the multiplicity of regulations that taxi companies must obey. Uber insists, and the Transport Agency at this point agrees, that it is a hire-car service and it fits within all the applicable regulations.

The differences between taxi and hire-car services are that taxis may be hailed in the street and charge by the metered distance they travel, plus extras like credit-card and eftpos fees.

Hire-car services must be booked in advance for a fee agreed in advance. Uber’s drivers are private operators with their own cars. Customers engage them via a smartphone application. The differences between the services can become blurred, however, and taxi companies say that some Uber operators are stepping over the line.

Some of the taxi companies’ fears, such as those about safety, can probably be discounted. Uber drivers, for instance, are vetted and must have a public passenger licence.

Passengers and drivers rate each other and Uber dismisses those drivers with consistently poor ratings. Because of the way they are hired, any misbehaving driver (or passenger) could also usually be traced.

There is, however, a strong argument for saying that taxis are over-regulated. Foss says that the Government wants to allow innovation to flourish. The review he has proposed must allow that and should not be used as a device to shut innovation down.

I’d be impressed with a taxi firm that tried to emulate Uber rather than close it down. Why not allow us to easily rate our taxi drivers and have that info available to passengers? Why can’t a taxi company inform a passenger which cabs are nearby, and allow the passenger to choose the one they want?

Stuff reports:

Waikane may have one of the largest populations of over-65-year-olds in the country and a mobility scooter seemingly on every street, but the town’s promoters say they are sick to death of the town being tagged “God’s waiting room.”

Former Kapiti mayor Brett Ambler coined the phrase more than 10 years ago and it stuck – perhaps a sign of its accuracy.

But Keep Waikanae Beautiful and Destination Waikanae are fed up with the phrase and the description “pensioner paradise.”

Norma McCallum, 79, has run Keep Waikanae Beautiful for 20 years and says the term ‘God’s waiting room’ should be dropped. …

Destination Waikanae member Sue Lusk, 61, said not just elderly people lived in the town.

“About 25 per cent of the population is over 65 but 75 per cent of everybody else includes a lot of young families and a terrific number of very well people. It is a bit heart-breaking when the myth is constantly reinforced.

That stats is not right. The four Waikanae area units have 37% of residents at the census aged over 65. This compares to 14% nationally.

The median age in Waikanae West and Waikanae Park is 64 and 61. This compares to 38 nationally.

Stuff reports:

The anti-bailout Syriza party has won a decisive victory in Greece’s national elections, according to projections by state-run TV’s exit poll, in a historic first for a radical left-wing party in Greece.

But it was unclear whether the communist-rooted party, led by Alexis Tsipras, had won by a big enough margin over Prime Minister Antonis Samaras’ incumbent conservatives to govern alone. For that, they need a minimum 151 of parliament’s 300 seats.

“What’s clear is we have a historic victory that sends a message that does not only concern the Greek people, but all European peoples,” Syriza party spokesman Panos Skourletis said on Mega television.

“There is great relief among all Europeans. The only question is how big a victory it is.”

Skourletis said the election results heralded “a return of social dignity and social justice. A return to democracy. Because, beyond the wild austerity, democracy has suffered.”

Tsipras, 40, has promised to renegotiate the country’s 240 billion-euro (NZ$360 billion) international bailout deal. He has pledged to reverse many of the reforms that creditors demanded — including cuts in pensions and the minimum wage, some privatizations and public sector firings — in exchange for keeping Greece financially afloat since 2010.

Greece has every right to elect a Government opposed to living within its means.

And the EU and IMF have every right to stop bailing Greece out, and funding them.

The likely outcome is Greece either goes bankrupt, or it leaves the Euro so that it gains a currency that reflects its actual worth.

The centrist Potami (River) party was battling for third place with the Nazi-inspired, extreme right-wing Golden Dawn, whose leadership is in prison pending trial for running a criminal organisation. Both were projected as being between 6.4 and 8 per cent.

When a country is in trouble, the extremist parties often do well – sadly.

It will be interesting to see if the new Government compromises on its rhetoric, or if it holds fast – in which case the bailouts should cease.

Karl du Fresne writes:

I have never met John Key, but like anyone who follows politics I’ve been able to observe him via the media. And after studying him carefully, I think I now realise the explanation for much of his behaviour. He’s on drugs.

Not the illegal kind, I should stress, but the mood-calming type that doctors prescribe. This may sound flippant, but consider the following.

In the 2014 election campaign, Key was subjected to possibly the most sustained media offensive faced by any prime minister in New Zealand history. Day after day he was tackled by an aggressive media pack trying to trap him on dirty politics, illicit surveillance and other touchy issues.

His answers were often unsatisfactory, which served only to ramp up the media frenzy. But through it all, he appeared supernaturally imperturbable. He patiently batted away reporters’ questions and accusations with his familiar bland inscrutability. There were no meltdowns, no hissy fits, no petulant walkouts.

This was downright unnatural. No politician should be that unflappable. He can have achieved it only by the ingestion of large amounts – indeed, industrial quantities – of tranquillisers.

Alternatively he may have voodoo dolls of key members of the press gallery 🙂

Stuff reports:

Cameron Slater says he knows he sells newspapers, so now he’s ready to sell pay-per-view television – even if he knows the viewers might be switching on to watch him get knocked out.

The controversial Whale Oil blogger and the subject of the Dirty Politics scandal will make his ring debut in Christchurch on March 28, against former New Zealand test cricketer Jesse Ryder.

Good to see Cameron following his political hero, Bill English, into the celebrity boxing arena!

Slater said he had limited boxing experience, but “it’s a good way to lose weight, a good way to get fitness up and these days with the death threats and people wanting to hate on you online, it might be useful to know how to use your fists”.

Slater admitted he would be the underdog against Ryder, who knocked out radio presenter Mark Watson three years ago in his only bout.

Ryder will be the clear favourite, but good on Cameron for giving it a go.