One of the things we have learned from the John Banks fiasco is that John Key will apparently put up with any sort of behaviour in his ministers so long as it's not actually a matter in which criminal charges are pending.
It is tempting to think how far this principle goes.
Presumably, then, if Mr Banks was accused of stabbing the members of a mime troupe in broad daylight on Wellesley Street before flying off in his helicopter and then taking potshots at people from his chopper with a sniper's rifle, but vehemently denied accusations by the harried survivors of mass murder (even in the face of witness statements and CCTV footage putting him at the scene), Key would only stand him down as a minister once formal charges were laid.
That's the absurdity of taking the word of a minister over what appears on the face of it to be evidence of a potential offence. More astonishing is the fact that Banks simply fails to grasp the completely untenable position he is in and the position he has left the Prime Minister in. This matter will consume Banks in the end, and the only questions that remain are how long Banks remains floundering and wriggling on the harpoon the media have him impaled on, and who Banks takes down with him.
It is also absurd for John Key or his MPs to claim that the last Labour government set some sort of precedent for how wayward ministers ought to be dealt with, and that there's really nothing out of the ordinary going on. John Key has often claimed that he holds his cabinet members to a higher standard of conduct than ministers under the last Labour government. It seems, however, that the nice Mr Key might have been tricking us.
From a political perspective it doesn't matter any more whether John Banks faces criminal charges. The damage to his career is terminal, and his credibility is ruined. He has behaved shamefully, and the arguments made on his behalf that what he has done is okay so long as it's not actually illegal are frankly disgraceful. The expectations we hold of our MPs go beyond not breaking the law.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
11 comments:
I welcome comments, but I ask commenters to follow a few simple rules:
1. I delete anonymous comments. Please use either a name or moniker. I am not asking anyone to reveal their secret identity. Just don't call yourself "Anonymous".
2. Please don't abuse or defame others.
3. Moronic or nonsensical comments may be deleted.
4. I don't often exercise the heavy hand of censorship, but I do reserve the right to delete any comment I don't like, for any reason.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Standing down isn't a tenable position for Banks either.
ReplyDeleteEvery time anyone says something like "Banks simply fails to grasp the completely untenable position he is in" I think "maybe he does grasp it, there just isn't any possible better position, so he's clinging to this one cos at least it's well paid"
Will he be gone by the end of the week???
ReplyDeleteI entirely agree with your post Scott, Banks is simply beyond disgraceful as is John Key for allowing this to go on. I can only hope this will all come back to bite John Key on the bum big time and that this is the beginning of the end for him. It's most certainly the end for Banks.
ReplyDeleteMcCully has done an appalling job with the proposed cuts at MFAT - he needs to go as well.
ReplyDeleteForgive me for the statement 'I can't recall' but there ye go, a worse case of foot in mouth,or in this event, feet in mouthes, in any group of M.P's ever. Worse still is that they go on with sense of impunity and give the one fingered salute to all who dare to ask questions. R.I.P. statesmanship.
ReplyDeleteRight...I recall Australia's Alan Bond, who seemed endowed with a similar political DNA. When interviewed before his downfall, comments such 'I don't recall,' and 'I don't seem to remember that,' festooned his responses.
Deletejohn has yet to use the american idiom - he mis-spoke - which in a funny way - he has big time -- yes his career & credibility is ruined - I can imagine him demanding 50 per cent reduction - he would have waved the ministerial warrant about like a cheer-leader's pom-pom & probably dropped a few names as well - 'kim dotcom' comes to mind. david beatson has a wonderful post pundit.co.nz. Getting that hotel to provide anything complimentary just does not happen - you really have to work for it. grovelling, being vulgar & forward - works well. diana and friends
ReplyDeleteNothing quite like a well planned withdrawal (sic) and cutting your losses when the chips are down and the odds are swiftly going against you..
ReplyDeleteBanks' amnesia however seems to preclude any common sense or even the perception of the tick of a shark circling & closing in..Perhaps he really did think the SKY was the limit...Enter Dot.com.... Hope this is the beginning of a game of political dominos that no one would have bet would tumble quite as quick..
Loathe slot machines personally and quite obviously MORE NOT in some unexpected interests already.. Karma ...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but anonymous comments are deleted.
DeleteWhat does the National/ACT confidence and supply agreement say about ministerial conduct? I'm guessing it doesn't, but that if Key takes Bank's baubles away, he'll have breached that agreement.
ReplyDelete