It's John Banks.
For having the tenacity and courage to lie to the public again and again. Telling so many brazen untruths took a special sort of bravery. His efforts to depict himself as the wronged party were unflagging, even as all the evidence suggested he had engaged in activity that, if not outright unlawful, was certainly unethical and shabby.
Showing posts with label John Banks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Banks. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Say What You Like, But He's No Criminal
Yesterday's Parliamentary Question Time was dominated by the entirely predictable attacks on John Key over his decision to stick with John Banks, and John Key's clownish attempts to get a laugh out of the situation. Key is vulnerable on the issue of Banks, and Labour and the Greens will want to talk as much as they can about the ACT leader.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
A Solution
In the news today:
Opposition parties say minister outside Cabinet John Banks has lost all credibility after fresh revelations into his mayoralty donations scandalWhat utter utter rubbish. John Banks hasn't lost an ounce of credibility over these latest revelations.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Wellington Health Officials Struggle To Cope With Contagion
An emergency quarantine zone has been established around the Beehive building in Wellington, after reports of senior government ministers inexplicably falling ill.
A civil emergency has now been declared in Wellington, and health officials have been meeting under urgency to consider how to address the situation.
The crisis became apparent after a government minister began to behave in an erratic manner.
According to Ministry of Health officials the minister, whom officials have refused to name for privacy reasons, began to display symptoms of severe memory loss and bewilderment, while talking in a confused manner about cabbage boats.
But it was not until another senior figure within the administration began to behave in a similar manner that officials realised they were dealing with some form of contagion.
The man, whom officials have labelled "JK" for privacy reasons, appeared to suffer sudden memory loss when questioned by journalists on Tuesday about his knowledge of various National Party matters.
"JK" appeared to regain some of his memory by the end of the interview, officials say, but they are still deeply concerned that a virulent infection may have eaten part of his brain.
Dr Briar Lundy of the Ministry of Health, who is overseeing the Wellington quarantine operation, said that people close to JK had reported seeing a gradual change in the patient over the last few months.
"The patient was apparently full of life, jovial and happy-go-lucky, right up until November last year. But since then he appears to have undergone a sharp decline.
"People who have observed JK over a number of years say he is looking more tired and careworn than ever before. When that is combined with the sudden memory loss and irritability, and a series of inexplicable policy decisions that fly in the face of common sense and reason, it becomes clear that we're dealing with some kind of brain infection.
"We've taken the precaution of quarantining the two victims, to prevent them from infecting the brains of others. The worry now is that other ministers may already be experiencing similar symptoms, and they will all need to undergo detailed testing."
Officials are considering seeking the issue of an epidemic notice under special legislation passed in 2006 at the height of the avian flu scare. However, the issue of an epidemic notice requires the approval of the Prime Minister, and officials believe that in the circumstances it may prove difficult to get that approval.
"The Prime Minister is unavailable right now," Dr Lundy told journalists when asked whether Mr Key would provide approval for an epidemic notice, though she refused to elaborate further.
A cordon has now been placed around the Beehive, and army personnel wearing hazmat suits are patrolling the area with guns. They have orders to keep people away from the building, while those inside have been isolated as a safety precaution.
Officials were considering throwing a wider cordon around the entire Parliamentary complex, after reports of a non-ministerial government MP acting in an erratic and irrational manner.
But the plan was called off after one of the man's caucus colleagues explained the man's behaviour.
"That's just Tau. He's been like that for years."
A civil emergency has now been declared in Wellington, and health officials have been meeting under urgency to consider how to address the situation.
The crisis became apparent after a government minister began to behave in an erratic manner.
According to Ministry of Health officials the minister, whom officials have refused to name for privacy reasons, began to display symptoms of severe memory loss and bewilderment, while talking in a confused manner about cabbage boats.
But it was not until another senior figure within the administration began to behave in a similar manner that officials realised they were dealing with some form of contagion.
The man, whom officials have labelled "JK" for privacy reasons, appeared to suffer sudden memory loss when questioned by journalists on Tuesday about his knowledge of various National Party matters.
"JK" appeared to regain some of his memory by the end of the interview, officials say, but they are still deeply concerned that a virulent infection may have eaten part of his brain.
Dr Briar Lundy of the Ministry of Health, who is overseeing the Wellington quarantine operation, said that people close to JK had reported seeing a gradual change in the patient over the last few months.
"The patient was apparently full of life, jovial and happy-go-lucky, right up until November last year. But since then he appears to have undergone a sharp decline.
"People who have observed JK over a number of years say he is looking more tired and careworn than ever before. When that is combined with the sudden memory loss and irritability, and a series of inexplicable policy decisions that fly in the face of common sense and reason, it becomes clear that we're dealing with some kind of brain infection.
"We've taken the precaution of quarantining the two victims, to prevent them from infecting the brains of others. The worry now is that other ministers may already be experiencing similar symptoms, and they will all need to undergo detailed testing."
Officials are considering seeking the issue of an epidemic notice under special legislation passed in 2006 at the height of the avian flu scare. However, the issue of an epidemic notice requires the approval of the Prime Minister, and officials believe that in the circumstances it may prove difficult to get that approval.
"The Prime Minister is unavailable right now," Dr Lundy told journalists when asked whether Mr Key would provide approval for an epidemic notice, though she refused to elaborate further.
A cordon has now been placed around the Beehive, and army personnel wearing hazmat suits are patrolling the area with guns. They have orders to keep people away from the building, while those inside have been isolated as a safety precaution.
Officials were considering throwing a wider cordon around the entire Parliamentary complex, after reports of a non-ministerial government MP acting in an erratic and irrational manner.
But the plan was called off after one of the man's caucus colleagues explained the man's behaviour.
"That's just Tau. He's been like that for years."
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Destroying Everyone Around Him
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.
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.
Harry Hindenberg: Fixing The Banks Problem
Acclaimed Papakura lawyer Harry Hindenberg proposes a defence for John Banks
If there was ever a time when John Banks needed a good lawyer, now is the time.
I have to feel sorry for Mr Banks, because he’s really done nothing wrong. Electoral laws serve no genuinely useful purpose, and are designed solely to keep bureaucrats in work. And who can even understand what those laws are? I tried to read the opinion piece of a few lawyers and a law professor on the internet regarding the Banks matter, but I kept falling asleep. After a heavy liquid lunch, preceded by an even heavier liquid breakfast, I like to snooze the afternoon away, before whiling away a few hours at the pokies. It doesn’t leave much time for the practice of law, but in my experience preparation is the enemy of the effective lawyer.
I have my own theories on how Mr Banks should handle the mess he’s found himself in, but you won’t find this defence in any fancy law books. I know a bit about how the legal system works, but not because of all the mumbo-jumbo I learned at law school. What a waste of time that period of my life was. I have appeared on numerous occasions before the courts, so I know how to impress a judge and jury, and I know what they like to hear. Perhaps the highlight of my legal career was appearing before the Chief Justice in a high profile fraud case. Thankfully, I was acquitted, though it was a near thing. Just as well they didn't find the shoebox of documents hidden in the ceiling cavity above my office.
The secret of good advocacy is not to get bogged down in detail. I'm an effective advocate for my clients because I don't let all the minutiae of a case overwhelm me. Like legislation. And cases. Law professors (or, as I like to call them, "failed lawyers") sitting in their ivory towers may like to think that the views of stuffy nineteenth century English law-lords are of critical importance to the practice of law, but those of us at the coalface know better. I never read cases, and a cursory glance at the legislation in question in any case is usually enough to give me a feel for the issues at hand. I always just follow my gut (which, if I am honest, is hard to miss, thanks to a steady diet of pies and whisky) rather than what the letter of the law says, and I am rarely let down. Sure, I lose an incredible number of cases, and I have had so many appearances before Law Society disciplinary tribunals that they all know me by my first name, but I always make sure I get paid. That's the mark of a good lawyer in my books.
So let's take the John Banks case. My advice to Mr Banks would be to disregard all that legal hocus-pocus his highly paid Queen Street lawyers are feeding him, because fighting the law with the law is just what his opponents would expect. Why would you play the enemy’s game?
I always like to surprise my enemies, in order to put them off-guard. The traditional way these matters work is for a police investigation to be launched, followed perhaps by a criminal prosecution if the evidence appears to show a breach of the law. But the one thing every lawyer knows is you can’t prosecute without evidence.
So if ever there was an occasion where the intimidation and disposal of witnesses was called for, this must be it. Without witnesses Mr Banks’ enemies have no case. It’s simple, really. John Banks, you really should call me.
Luckily for Mr Banks, I happen to know the right people to handle this particular complication. I like to think of myself as a creative problem-solver and a fixer, rather than your traditional sort of lawyer. If that means ethical lines (as well as the Crimes Act) are occasionally blurred or trampled on, then so be it.
Some of the ethical rules we lawyers are held to are ridiculous anyway, like all the rules around what we can do with our trust accounts. When a client gives me a wad of cash for some transaction, like the purchase of a house, I tell them it's going into my firm's trust account. When later on they ask where the money went and why their purchase didn't go through, I have to tell them a few home truths. "It's called a trust account, dammit, so trust me!"
When that approach doesn't work I usually tell them they'll get their money back, but often it requires a bit of juggling with client funds and a few punts. I can't tell you how many scrapes I've narrowly avoided thanks to a good result on the Trentham track.
The trouble with some clients, though, is that you just can't do anything for them. No matter how much effort you put into their legal affairs, they'll still complain. I have an example of this for you happening right now, if you will allow me to breach client confidentiality and explain.
So the Singhs seemed like a nice family. They were new to this country and they came to me to help with the purchase of their first home. If only I had know they would try to destroy my legal career!
These folk had the temerity to complain loudly when I failed to register the title of the property in their names, and I instead registered it in the name of a finance company that a mate of mine owns. This mate does good deals, and he and I always look after each other. On this occasion he gave me a good price for the house, which was bloody handy when it came to paying off some very scary people.
Somehow the Singhs have found out about this minor title defect, and they're now threatening to go to the Law Society if I don't fix the matter. I tried telling them they're overreacting and that we have a certain way of doing business in New Zealand, but they won't listen.
"Look, you know and I know that you own the house," I said. "What difference does a bit of paper make?"
Mr Singh told me I was an unethical, dishonest scumbag who preyed on the disadvantaged. Me! I tried to put him straight by mentioning all the pro bono legal work I do for the community, but it seems he wasn't impressed by my efforts on behalf of the Society for the Welfare of Bridgecorp Directors.
It's lucky that in this particular transaction I acted for seller, buyer and lender, and that I'm pretty good at copying signatures, so I should be able to put things right. My finance company mate will be pissed off, but I have a lot of dirt on him, and if he wants his next P supply he'll stay silent.
Like Alan Martin used to say, it is the putting right that counts, and if it's not put right ask for me. I stand behind the results I promise (very far behind, and usually with a number of offshore trusts and nominee companies in between), which is why, Mr Banks, you need to call me. But I’ll require a healthy retainer and sufficient funds to cover miscellaneous expenses. The people I will be hiring don’t generally invoice for their services, so when you come to see me bring cash, lots of it, in unmarked bills, and don’t tell anyone who you’re meeting.
If there was ever a time when John Banks needed a good lawyer, now is the time.
I have to feel sorry for Mr Banks, because he’s really done nothing wrong. Electoral laws serve no genuinely useful purpose, and are designed solely to keep bureaucrats in work. And who can even understand what those laws are? I tried to read the opinion piece of a few lawyers and a law professor on the internet regarding the Banks matter, but I kept falling asleep. After a heavy liquid lunch, preceded by an even heavier liquid breakfast, I like to snooze the afternoon away, before whiling away a few hours at the pokies. It doesn’t leave much time for the practice of law, but in my experience preparation is the enemy of the effective lawyer.
I have my own theories on how Mr Banks should handle the mess he’s found himself in, but you won’t find this defence in any fancy law books. I know a bit about how the legal system works, but not because of all the mumbo-jumbo I learned at law school. What a waste of time that period of my life was. I have appeared on numerous occasions before the courts, so I know how to impress a judge and jury, and I know what they like to hear. Perhaps the highlight of my legal career was appearing before the Chief Justice in a high profile fraud case. Thankfully, I was acquitted, though it was a near thing. Just as well they didn't find the shoebox of documents hidden in the ceiling cavity above my office.
The secret of good advocacy is not to get bogged down in detail. I'm an effective advocate for my clients because I don't let all the minutiae of a case overwhelm me. Like legislation. And cases. Law professors (or, as I like to call them, "failed lawyers") sitting in their ivory towers may like to think that the views of stuffy nineteenth century English law-lords are of critical importance to the practice of law, but those of us at the coalface know better. I never read cases, and a cursory glance at the legislation in question in any case is usually enough to give me a feel for the issues at hand. I always just follow my gut (which, if I am honest, is hard to miss, thanks to a steady diet of pies and whisky) rather than what the letter of the law says, and I am rarely let down. Sure, I lose an incredible number of cases, and I have had so many appearances before Law Society disciplinary tribunals that they all know me by my first name, but I always make sure I get paid. That's the mark of a good lawyer in my books.
So let's take the John Banks case. My advice to Mr Banks would be to disregard all that legal hocus-pocus his highly paid Queen Street lawyers are feeding him, because fighting the law with the law is just what his opponents would expect. Why would you play the enemy’s game?
I always like to surprise my enemies, in order to put them off-guard. The traditional way these matters work is for a police investigation to be launched, followed perhaps by a criminal prosecution if the evidence appears to show a breach of the law. But the one thing every lawyer knows is you can’t prosecute without evidence.
So if ever there was an occasion where the intimidation and disposal of witnesses was called for, this must be it. Without witnesses Mr Banks’ enemies have no case. It’s simple, really. John Banks, you really should call me.
Luckily for Mr Banks, I happen to know the right people to handle this particular complication. I like to think of myself as a creative problem-solver and a fixer, rather than your traditional sort of lawyer. If that means ethical lines (as well as the Crimes Act) are occasionally blurred or trampled on, then so be it.
Some of the ethical rules we lawyers are held to are ridiculous anyway, like all the rules around what we can do with our trust accounts. When a client gives me a wad of cash for some transaction, like the purchase of a house, I tell them it's going into my firm's trust account. When later on they ask where the money went and why their purchase didn't go through, I have to tell them a few home truths. "It's called a trust account, dammit, so trust me!"
When that approach doesn't work I usually tell them they'll get their money back, but often it requires a bit of juggling with client funds and a few punts. I can't tell you how many scrapes I've narrowly avoided thanks to a good result on the Trentham track.
The trouble with some clients, though, is that you just can't do anything for them. No matter how much effort you put into their legal affairs, they'll still complain. I have an example of this for you happening right now, if you will allow me to breach client confidentiality and explain.
So the Singhs seemed like a nice family. They were new to this country and they came to me to help with the purchase of their first home. If only I had know they would try to destroy my legal career!
These folk had the temerity to complain loudly when I failed to register the title of the property in their names, and I instead registered it in the name of a finance company that a mate of mine owns. This mate does good deals, and he and I always look after each other. On this occasion he gave me a good price for the house, which was bloody handy when it came to paying off some very scary people.
Somehow the Singhs have found out about this minor title defect, and they're now threatening to go to the Law Society if I don't fix the matter. I tried telling them they're overreacting and that we have a certain way of doing business in New Zealand, but they won't listen.
"Look, you know and I know that you own the house," I said. "What difference does a bit of paper make?"
Mr Singh told me I was an unethical, dishonest scumbag who preyed on the disadvantaged. Me! I tried to put him straight by mentioning all the pro bono legal work I do for the community, but it seems he wasn't impressed by my efforts on behalf of the Society for the Welfare of Bridgecorp Directors.
It's lucky that in this particular transaction I acted for seller, buyer and lender, and that I'm pretty good at copying signatures, so I should be able to put things right. My finance company mate will be pissed off, but I have a lot of dirt on him, and if he wants his next P supply he'll stay silent.
Like Alan Martin used to say, it is the putting right that counts, and if it's not put right ask for me. I stand behind the results I promise (very far behind, and usually with a number of offshore trusts and nominee companies in between), which is why, Mr Banks, you need to call me. But I’ll require a healthy retainer and sufficient funds to cover miscellaneous expenses. The people I will be hiring don’t generally invoice for their services, so when you come to see me bring cash, lots of it, in unmarked bills, and don’t tell anyone who you’re meeting.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
A Statement By John Banks
On Sunday morning I made it clear to Paul Holmes on TVNZ's Q&A current affairs show that I didn't come up the river on a cabbage boat.
I am aware that a number of my enemies are trying to catch me out, and I fully expect they will be looking to twist my words. So in order to "front-foot" this matter, as the saying goes, I am making the following statement.
I have no recollection of ever travelling on any cabbage boat. I have gone on a number of river journeys over the years, and I don't ever remember seeing crates of cabbages on any of the vessels I sailed on.
If any cabbages were being transported during those river sojourns, then it was certainly not something brought to my attention. Having said that, it would be unreasonable to expect a politician to go below and inspect every single crate of cargo for hidden cabbages, every time he wanted to go on a river cruise.
So I have nothing to hide, and I welcome any enquiry into my eating habits.
But let me be clear, in case footage subsequently emerges of me eating coleslaw or sprawled among piles of cabbages on the deck of a boat as it winds its way up some river, that any statement I may have made in the past about my cabbage-related activities was made in good faith and to the best of my knowledge.
I have been in politics most of my working life, and I meet a lot of people and go to a lot of lunches and dinners. I can't always control the meals served to me, and rather than offend my hosts with demands for cabbage-free meals, I often request that they don't reveal whether or not they have put cabbage on my plate. By telling my hosts to make the cabbage out to be anonymous I am avoiding future problems, both for me and for my hosts. This is all above board, and if you ask any law professor whether my eating habits have broken any laws they'll tell you you're being ridiculous.
It is true that I have eaten bok choy several times, and although I am aware that some people refer to bok choy as "Chinese cabbage", I refuse to accept that my failure to declare my consumption of bok choy has in any way been misleading or dishonest.
I lead a party that is fighting hard to make New Zealand a better place, and I'm not interested in sideshows about brassica varieties that I may or may not have inadvertently eaten, especially when there are thousands of kids in South Auckland going hungry, for whom a decent cabbage meal would be a luxury.
So even if it turned out that I had a cabbage fetish and secretly enjoyed filming myself rolling around in the stuff in the basement of my house while listening to Whitney Houston's Greatest Love of All, why would that be a problem?
Anyone who suggests I have done anything wrong is just trying to cause political mischief. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a helicopter to catch.
Anyone who knows me will tell you that I have been scrupulous in avoiding cabbages throughout my political career. As far as I am aware I have only ever eaten cabbage once during my political career, but this was an error due to a catering mix-up, and I disclosed the matter to everyone at the dinner table at the time. I was so concerned at the catering mix-up that I sought and obtained assurances from the people involved that it was a genuine error, and I have sworn affidavits to that effect from those people.
So I have nothing to hide, and I welcome any enquiry into my eating habits.
But let me be clear, in case footage subsequently emerges of me eating coleslaw or sprawled among piles of cabbages on the deck of a boat as it winds its way up some river, that any statement I may have made in the past about my cabbage-related activities was made in good faith and to the best of my knowledge.
I have been in politics most of my working life, and I meet a lot of people and go to a lot of lunches and dinners. I can't always control the meals served to me, and rather than offend my hosts with demands for cabbage-free meals, I often request that they don't reveal whether or not they have put cabbage on my plate. By telling my hosts to make the cabbage out to be anonymous I am avoiding future problems, both for me and for my hosts. This is all above board, and if you ask any law professor whether my eating habits have broken any laws they'll tell you you're being ridiculous.
It is true that I have eaten bok choy several times, and although I am aware that some people refer to bok choy as "Chinese cabbage", I refuse to accept that my failure to declare my consumption of bok choy has in any way been misleading or dishonest.
I lead a party that is fighting hard to make New Zealand a better place, and I'm not interested in sideshows about brassica varieties that I may or may not have inadvertently eaten, especially when there are thousands of kids in South Auckland going hungry, for whom a decent cabbage meal would be a luxury.
So even if it turned out that I had a cabbage fetish and secretly enjoyed filming myself rolling around in the stuff in the basement of my house while listening to Whitney Houston's Greatest Love of All, why would that be a problem?
Anyone who suggests I have done anything wrong is just trying to cause political mischief. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a helicopter to catch.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Booze-busting Banks Divides ACT
A bitter fight has erupted within the ACT Party over the decision by leader John Banks to vote against keeping the alcohol purchasing age at 18.
The move by Banks to support measures to further control the supply of liquor has some party strategists worried. They are concerned that an increasingly sober populace in control of its senses and making sensible voting choices would be a disaster for the party.
The issue has led to divisions within the party, and questions being raised about whether John Banks is the right person to lead the ACT Party.
The party's annual conference, which took place over the weekend in a bus shelter in Parnell, highlighted a number of differences of opinion between party members on the direction ACT should take.
A small but vocal faction appears determined to return ACT to its libertarian foundations, while another faction continues to push for more conservative policies.
A third faction failed to attend the party conference, because it was back at its house in front of its PC writing rambling and angry comments on Kiwiblog about the evils of socialism, and blaming everyone but itself for its fall into disgrace and ruination.
Of all the policies ACT has advocated, it is the alcohol age one that threatens to fatally divide the party.
"People need to be drinking more," said the party's president Chris Simmons. "If we can grow the level of intoxication throughout society, especially at election time, there's a chance a few voters might stumble into polling booths drunk and accidentally vote for us.
"What we don't need are wowsers like John Banks telling people they can't drink and make disastrous voting decisions. ACT stands for freedom and liberty, and we strongly believe that everyone should be free to make terrible, terrible mistakes."
Former MP John Boscawen admitted he had "some concerns" about the decision by John Banks to vote for the alcohol law change.
"Young people are particularly stupid when they come into contact with alcohol," said Mr Boscawen, "and when they're that tanked up anything can happen.
"Sure, some of these kids will drink so much that they end up falling into a gutter or getting into trouble with the police. But some of them will join ACT on Campus."
The move by Banks to support measures to further control the supply of liquor has some party strategists worried. They are concerned that an increasingly sober populace in control of its senses and making sensible voting choices would be a disaster for the party.
The issue has led to divisions within the party, and questions being raised about whether John Banks is the right person to lead the ACT Party.
The party's annual conference, which took place over the weekend in a bus shelter in Parnell, highlighted a number of differences of opinion between party members on the direction ACT should take.
A small but vocal faction appears determined to return ACT to its libertarian foundations, while another faction continues to push for more conservative policies.
A third faction failed to attend the party conference, because it was back at its house in front of its PC writing rambling and angry comments on Kiwiblog about the evils of socialism, and blaming everyone but itself for its fall into disgrace and ruination.
Of all the policies ACT has advocated, it is the alcohol age one that threatens to fatally divide the party.
"People need to be drinking more," said the party's president Chris Simmons. "If we can grow the level of intoxication throughout society, especially at election time, there's a chance a few voters might stumble into polling booths drunk and accidentally vote for us.
"What we don't need are wowsers like John Banks telling people they can't drink and make disastrous voting decisions. ACT stands for freedom and liberty, and we strongly believe that everyone should be free to make terrible, terrible mistakes."
Former MP John Boscawen admitted he had "some concerns" about the decision by John Banks to vote for the alcohol law change.
"Young people are particularly stupid when they come into contact with alcohol," said Mr Boscawen, "and when they're that tanked up anything can happen.
"Sure, some of these kids will drink so much that they end up falling into a gutter or getting into trouble with the police. But some of them will join ACT on Campus."
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Call Me, John
John Banks says Catherine Isaac is qualified to oversee the trial of Charter Schools because the ACT list candidate "loves education", and spent six years on a school board of trustees.
I love cricket, and I spent several years playing the game in my youth. Should I take over John Wright's job when he retires?
I am also a fan of the All Blacks, and have played a bit of club rugby in New Zealand and England. Clearly I can do just as good a job as Steve Hansen.
I've also watched quite a few films over the years, and I did a film appreciation paper at University, so Sir Peter might as well hand over The Hobbit directing duties right now.
And I'm a big fan of education. I spent several years in various schools and universities, so I would also like a role in setting up these Charter Schools. Give me a call, John.
I love cricket, and I spent several years playing the game in my youth. Should I take over John Wright's job when he retires?
I am also a fan of the All Blacks, and have played a bit of club rugby in New Zealand and England. Clearly I can do just as good a job as Steve Hansen.
I've also watched quite a few films over the years, and I did a film appreciation paper at University, so Sir Peter might as well hand over The Hobbit directing duties right now.
And I'm a big fan of education. I spent several years in various schools and universities, so I would also like a role in setting up these Charter Schools. Give me a call, John.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Trying Hard To Lose
National Party candidate for Epsom Paul Goldsmith last night told a business gathering in Newmarket that he was once a mercenary for former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.
The revelation came after a television news poll showed Mr Goldsmith is well in front of ACT's John Banks in the race for Epsom electorate.
Prime Minister John Key has already signalled that Epsom voters should cast their candidate vote for Banks but give their party vote to National.
Goldsmith has been trying to keep a low profile in an effort not to win the seat, but it appears that Epsom people are turned off by the prospect of John Banks becoming their electorate MP.
Speculation is growing that Goldsmith has been told by Key to do whatever it takes to lose the contest to the ACT candidate.
Mr Goldsmith told the Newmarket Business Association gathering last night that he had served with Gaddafi in Libya, but had been dismissed for gross cowardice and theft.
He also confirmed that he has dozens of convictions for fraud, arson, theft and sedition.
In addition, Mr Goldsmith confirmed he thought communism was an excellent political ideology and that, if elected as MP for Epsom, he would seek to confiscate all the finest houses in Epsom and turn much of the electorate into a gigantic collective farm.
He then proceeded to light a joint and smoke it slowly while saying "wow, man! Wooow!"
Two days ago Mr Goldsmith was seen pulling out election signs promoting his candidacy. Yesterday he was photographed stealing a handbag from an old lady. Journalists following his campaign reported that he also stopped at a war memorial to urinate on the cenotaph, and that later in the day he told members of a men's bowls club that he was sexually attracted to them.
Cecil Brown of the Parnell Men's Bowls Club said Mr Goldsmith behaved oddly during his visit to the club.
"When he came in and kissed both the President and Treasurer on the back of their necks I thought 'hello, here's a rum sort.'
"When he asked if he could take his trousers off because he was hot, and then began walking around the club in his underwear, the Club Secretary had to have a word with him about our dress-code. We didn't expect the poor bugger to start crying and rolling around the floor.
"I've been a National man since the day I was old enough to think for myself, and I always vote for the National candidate, no matter what. We've had some pretty useless ones in recent years, like that Worth bloke, but I still gave the bastards my vote.
"But not this time. Do you know what that Goldsmith joker did? He went to the bar and ordered a light beer shandy with a straw. A straw!"
Last night Goldsmith was interviewed by 3 News' Patrick Gower and asked to explain whether he wanted to become the MP for Epsom.
Mr Goldsmith was unable to answer the question, because the flames of the church he was standing next to and had just set fire to forced him to seek shelter.
When asked to comment this morning on claims he was deliberately trying to lose the Epsom race, Goldsmith said he could not talk because he was late to a meeting with the Mongrel Mob about joining their gang.
Goldsmith later appeared on Broadway Newmarket wearing the Mongrel Mob's colours and a gang patch, where he spoke to reporters.
When asked whether he was seeking to win the seat, Mr Goldsmith said "I'm too busy planning my next killing spree to focus on the electorate contest. Party vote National!"
The revelation came after a television news poll showed Mr Goldsmith is well in front of ACT's John Banks in the race for Epsom electorate.
Prime Minister John Key has already signalled that Epsom voters should cast their candidate vote for Banks but give their party vote to National.
Goldsmith has been trying to keep a low profile in an effort not to win the seat, but it appears that Epsom people are turned off by the prospect of John Banks becoming their electorate MP.
Speculation is growing that Goldsmith has been told by Key to do whatever it takes to lose the contest to the ACT candidate.
Mr Goldsmith told the Newmarket Business Association gathering last night that he had served with Gaddafi in Libya, but had been dismissed for gross cowardice and theft.
He also confirmed that he has dozens of convictions for fraud, arson, theft and sedition.
In addition, Mr Goldsmith confirmed he thought communism was an excellent political ideology and that, if elected as MP for Epsom, he would seek to confiscate all the finest houses in Epsom and turn much of the electorate into a gigantic collective farm.
He then proceeded to light a joint and smoke it slowly while saying "wow, man! Wooow!"
Two days ago Mr Goldsmith was seen pulling out election signs promoting his candidacy. Yesterday he was photographed stealing a handbag from an old lady. Journalists following his campaign reported that he also stopped at a war memorial to urinate on the cenotaph, and that later in the day he told members of a men's bowls club that he was sexually attracted to them.
Cecil Brown of the Parnell Men's Bowls Club said Mr Goldsmith behaved oddly during his visit to the club.
"When he came in and kissed both the President and Treasurer on the back of their necks I thought 'hello, here's a rum sort.'
"When he asked if he could take his trousers off because he was hot, and then began walking around the club in his underwear, the Club Secretary had to have a word with him about our dress-code. We didn't expect the poor bugger to start crying and rolling around the floor.
"I've been a National man since the day I was old enough to think for myself, and I always vote for the National candidate, no matter what. We've had some pretty useless ones in recent years, like that Worth bloke, but I still gave the bastards my vote.
"But not this time. Do you know what that Goldsmith joker did? He went to the bar and ordered a light beer shandy with a straw. A straw!"
Last night Goldsmith was interviewed by 3 News' Patrick Gower and asked to explain whether he wanted to become the MP for Epsom.
Mr Goldsmith was unable to answer the question, because the flames of the church he was standing next to and had just set fire to forced him to seek shelter.
When asked to comment this morning on claims he was deliberately trying to lose the Epsom race, Goldsmith said he could not talk because he was late to a meeting with the Mongrel Mob about joining their gang.
Goldsmith later appeared on Broadway Newmarket wearing the Mongrel Mob's colours and a gang patch, where he spoke to reporters.
When asked whether he was seeking to win the seat, Mr Goldsmith said "I'm too busy planning my next killing spree to focus on the electorate contest. Party vote National!"
Monday, November 14, 2011
Should We Know What Was Really Said?
No.
I would love to know what was really said between John Key and John Banks when they met over a “cuppa” last week, but on the other hand I have no right to know.
If the pair said anything remotely controversial while all those cameras were near, then they are idiots, and it would in many ways be just desserts for their conversation to be published.
But I don’t like the idea of people’s private conversations being recorded without their knowledge, regardless of the legal position.
Some people are claiming that it is in the public interest to know what was said because Key and Banks were discussing matters potentially critical to the make-up of the next parliament. But how many of those people now demanding a release of the recording would be comfortable if someone bugged a private conversation between Phil Goff and one of the Greens co-leaders during a public event?
I have no opinion on whether the recording was accidental or deliberate, and I suspect the only person who knows the truth of the matter is the freelancer who took the recording. If it was an accidental recording then the Herald on Sunday may have the legal right to publish details of what was said.
But the Herald on Sunday has said it will not publish details of what was said, which renders laughable the fervent claims by some National supporters that this is some sort of NOTW-style covert operation.
However, it may be in National’s interests to keep talking about this issue. A story like this that keeps the opposition parties off the headlines this close to an election can only be good for the governing party.
I would love to know what was really said between John Key and John Banks when they met over a “cuppa” last week, but on the other hand I have no right to know.
If the pair said anything remotely controversial while all those cameras were near, then they are idiots, and it would in many ways be just desserts for their conversation to be published.
But I don’t like the idea of people’s private conversations being recorded without their knowledge, regardless of the legal position.
Some people are claiming that it is in the public interest to know what was said because Key and Banks were discussing matters potentially critical to the make-up of the next parliament. But how many of those people now demanding a release of the recording would be comfortable if someone bugged a private conversation between Phil Goff and one of the Greens co-leaders during a public event?
I have no opinion on whether the recording was accidental or deliberate, and I suspect the only person who knows the truth of the matter is the freelancer who took the recording. If it was an accidental recording then the Herald on Sunday may have the legal right to publish details of what was said.
But the Herald on Sunday has said it will not publish details of what was said, which renders laughable the fervent claims by some National supporters that this is some sort of NOTW-style covert operation.
However, it may be in National’s interests to keep talking about this issue. A story like this that keeps the opposition parties off the headlines this close to an election can only be good for the governing party.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
When John Met John
Banks: Hi John.
Key: By the way, John, I wanted to say you're looking good. Fitter and trimmer.
Banks: You too, John. You're looking very good to me.
Key: The glasses suit you too, John. They make you look more intellectual and sophisticated.
Banks: Why thank you, John.
Key: No problem, John.
Banks: John... actually do you mind if I call you John? "Prime Minister" sounds just so formal.
Key: Go ahead and call me John, John. I'm a man of the people.
Banks: I will then, John. John, can we be open and honest?
Key: We're politicians, John. Why would we start now?
Banks: Oh very good, John, very good!
Key: The people love my sense of humour, John. Anyway, you were saying?
Banks: Yes yes! But first, are you sure this is safe? None of those awful journalists outside will be able to hear what we say, will they John?
Key: Certainly not. And they wouldn't dare publish anything even if they could overhear us, John.
Banks: Good. Because I wanted to tell you something, John. It's something I've been thinking a lot about as I've been campaigning through the Epsom electorate these last few weeks. I've met with people of all types, John: white people, middle class people, upper middle class people, the super-wealthy, and even some white people.
Key: You already mentioned the white people, John.
Banks: Oh, right...the thing is, John, the experience has changed me, and I think for the better. You know, John, I've developed a reputation in the past as being a bit of an abrasive character. Some people have called me racist and bigoted, which really hurts. But I've learned something, John.
Key: What's that, John?
Banks: I've learned that it takes all sorts to make up this crazy beautiful world of ours. It doesn't matter whether you're a merchant banker, a lawyer, an accountant or just a lowly stockbroker. We're all different, John.
Key: Ah... sure, John... I guess...
Banks: And all this got me to thinking abut the miracle that is life. It is a miracle, isn't it, John?
Key: I'll tell you what a miracle is. A miracle is my f**king popularity rating, John. They say you can't fool all the people all of the time, but they obviously never met me. I don't even know how I get away with some of the sh*t I say.
Banks: You've got a good heart, John. That's what matters. A good heart.
Key: Thank you, John.
Banks: John, do you think much about the afterlife?
Key: No John, I try not to think about my time after politics. It's bad luck to.
Banks: I mean when your body has expired and your soul ascends into the heavens. Do you think much about death, John?
Key: I'm pretty relaxed about it, to be honest, John. Why?
Banks: John, do you worry about how God will judge the life you have led?
Key: No, John, I probably haven't had the time. I work really long hours, and having to manage the likes of Gerry Brownlee and Paula Bennett doesn't lend itself to quiet contemplation.
Banks: John, have you let Jesus into your life?
Key: No, John, not as such. I have to be honest: my schedule's pretty jammed up until the end of November, but if you think he'd be interested in donating to the party I may be able to fit something in. Unless you're happy for Steven and Murray to meet with him.
Banks: John, I think it's important that we all find time for Jesus. If there's one thing I've learned while pounding the mean streets of Epsom, it's that we all need to let Jesus the Eternal Saviour and Divine Son of God into our lives.
Key: John, are you sure that's just tea in that cup?
Banks: John, God freely offers eternal life to all mankind.
Key: Free, John? You mean he's just giving it away? That doesn't sound to me like a sustainable business model. It sounds like something those Labour clowns dreamed up.
Banks: John, do you know what the Bible tells us? It tells us that Jesus died upon the cross, shedding His blood for our sins.
Key: Did he really, John? I don't recall that happening. Was that during my lost "Springbok Tour" years?
Banks: John, He was then buried and rose again three days later. Jesus took His literal blood, ascended into Heaven, and applied it to the mercy seat in Heaven.
Key: That sounds unpleasant and messy, John, That's why when I ascend I always go business class.
Banks: John, I'm not sure you understand. Look, here... I wrote down some words from the Bible. can I just read them to you? Here it is. Ahem..."Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed. And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise. And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also. In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven."
Key: I think I saw that movie years ago, John. But weren't there seven brides in the film?
Banks: Don't you see? It's a message, John.
Key: Is it, John?
Banks: About this party I've joined, John. In the parable the wife is barren for each of the brothers.
Key: Well maybe she was on the pill. But how exactly is this a problem, John? I'll tell you what would have been a problem. It would have been a problem if this woman had ended up with seven different litters to seven different men. Thank God all our tough talking on welfare mums is finally sinking in.
Banks: John, don't you see? First Hide, then Brash, then... well look at the polls! I've joined a stinker of a party and in two weeks time I'll be its only MP and its effective leader when that muppet Brash steps down! Christ, John, what have I gotten myself into?
Key: John, surely you must have seen this coming. Nobody actually liked Brash even when he was my leader.
Banks: I made a mistake when Brash knocked on my door. I was at a low ebb after that Brown fellow knocked me over in the mayoralty contest. John, I suppose you could say I was young and foolish.
Key: Well, John, it's too late to do anything about it now, isn't it?
Banks: But couldn't I.... couldn't I join the blue team? I'm a National man at heart, John.
Key: I know, John, which is why you'd be doing the party a huge favour by winning Epsom.
Banks: I don't want to be an ACT man, John! I can't face the humiliation. Do you know they even want to legalise the smoking of wacky-baccy?
Key: Do you love the party, John?
Banks: Of course I do, John.
Key: Then do this one thing for us, John. Win Epsom.
Banks: And then after the election... can I come back, John? Please?
Key: I really need you in ACT, John.
Banks: But you don't understand, John. I love National. I love its leader. I... I think I love you, John.
Key: John, you're making me feel a bit weird now.
Banks: Yes, John, I do love you. I do! And I would shout it to the world if only I could.
Key: John, have you been ill recently?
Banks: Don't you worry, John, I'm a man's man. I'm not into any of that men-rubbing-up-against-each-other nonsense, what with all that sweat and noise. Disgusting! It makes me angry just thinking about all those men grinding together in sweaty piles making sweet perverted love. Ugh!
Key: Look, John, I think I need to be going. You wouldn't believe the crazy day I have ahead.
Banks: Don't go yet! Please, John! Don't go until you've promised me you'll have me back!
Key: John, I can't do that.
Banks: I'm begging you, John. Please don't leave me with these ACT nutters. Take me back.
Key: No, John.
Banks: John, please!
Key: John, I have to go. Please, take your hands off my arm.
Banks: Okay then, John, but at least make me a minister in the next government.
Key: John, it's a deal. Consider it done. Pacific Island Affairs?
Banks: Perfect, John. Christ be with you.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Dirty Or Fair Tactics In Epsom?
Like most other people I have allowed myself to be distracted by the Rugby World Cup. There's an election in a month, but the World Cup has been an enormous diversion, and the only other local news getting attention has been the Rena disaster.
Now we are well and truly into election season, and already the mud is flying. Right wing bloggers are accusing Labour of dirty tactics, after pamphlets highlighting previous John Banks comments surfaced in Epsom. I don't know the entire story behind this, including as to the legality of the pamphlet, but the Banks comments appear to have been genuine. The pamphlets quote some 2010 NZ Herald articles as the sources of the comments, though it appears that most of the offensive things said by Banks are well in the past.
So is it fair, or a cheap shot? Banks claims to have mellowed, though it's not clear whether he has ever renounced any of the racist or homophobic opinions expressed by him in the past. His "mellowing" may simply have been the realisation that he ought to keep his offensive views to himself. They are certainly opinions that, if uttered today, would make him unelectable as an electorate MP.
Mr Banks could certainly shed some light on the matter by making it clear what he currently thinks about race relations and homosexuality.
It's also odd that the same right-wing bloggers who moan about Labour's "dirty tricks" in rooting around in Banks' past, are more than happy to relate what Phil Goff was saying and doing in the 1980s. Sauce for the goose etc.
More importantly, do these sorts of attacks work? I suspect the pamphlets won't make much difference to the race for Epsom. It's a conservative electorate and a good number of people there would probably be attracted to a candidate who took a hardline on minority groups. Others will just brush it off as an ill-directed smear. It's not the sort of tactic I'm fond of, because it reminds me of the pamphlet drops in 2005 that smeared the Greens and arguably cost Don Brash the election that year.
For the first time in a while the Nats are wobbling. Not exactly floundering, and the polls are still strong for National. But John Key has looked less than assured in recent weeks, and his efforts to be photographed with All Blacks and to be first to shake hands with Richie McCaw are becoming painful to watch. The man leads a government without any plan for the future, and the Key brand is the only thing holding the entire thing together. If the Key brand ever loses its shine then there's every chance the public will drive these clowns out of office.
So attack pamphlets like the ones put out in Epsom probably don't help, because they allow Labour's enemies to paint the Opposition as nasty. Even if the nasty one is the person who spent years in Parliament and on talkback radio abusing Maori, Polynesians, homosexuals and feminists.
Now we are well and truly into election season, and already the mud is flying. Right wing bloggers are accusing Labour of dirty tactics, after pamphlets highlighting previous John Banks comments surfaced in Epsom. I don't know the entire story behind this, including as to the legality of the pamphlet, but the Banks comments appear to have been genuine. The pamphlets quote some 2010 NZ Herald articles as the sources of the comments, though it appears that most of the offensive things said by Banks are well in the past.
So is it fair, or a cheap shot? Banks claims to have mellowed, though it's not clear whether he has ever renounced any of the racist or homophobic opinions expressed by him in the past. His "mellowing" may simply have been the realisation that he ought to keep his offensive views to himself. They are certainly opinions that, if uttered today, would make him unelectable as an electorate MP.
Mr Banks could certainly shed some light on the matter by making it clear what he currently thinks about race relations and homosexuality.
It's also odd that the same right-wing bloggers who moan about Labour's "dirty tricks" in rooting around in Banks' past, are more than happy to relate what Phil Goff was saying and doing in the 1980s. Sauce for the goose etc.
More importantly, do these sorts of attacks work? I suspect the pamphlets won't make much difference to the race for Epsom. It's a conservative electorate and a good number of people there would probably be attracted to a candidate who took a hardline on minority groups. Others will just brush it off as an ill-directed smear. It's not the sort of tactic I'm fond of, because it reminds me of the pamphlet drops in 2005 that smeared the Greens and arguably cost Don Brash the election that year.
For the first time in a while the Nats are wobbling. Not exactly floundering, and the polls are still strong for National. But John Key has looked less than assured in recent weeks, and his efforts to be photographed with All Blacks and to be first to shake hands with Richie McCaw are becoming painful to watch. The man leads a government without any plan for the future, and the Key brand is the only thing holding the entire thing together. If the Key brand ever loses its shine then there's every chance the public will drive these clowns out of office.
So attack pamphlets like the ones put out in Epsom probably don't help, because they allow Labour's enemies to paint the Opposition as nasty. Even if the nasty one is the person who spent years in Parliament and on talkback radio abusing Maori, Polynesians, homosexuals and feminists.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Who Else Is Taking The Piss?
It’s hard work at the best of times for political parties to attract good candidates. But it’s doubly so for the two main parties, because all the smaller parties are so quick to secure the urine-drinking bank-robbing identity-thieves, leaving National and Labour only the boring and sensible candidates to choose from.
Apart from the woman-bothering expense-rorting ones, those who end up in Parliament for the Nats or Labour often lack colour, but that’s probably because they’re not drinking their own piss.
Forcing yourself to drink your own urine probably isn’t so different to being an ACT supporter. Imagine waking up every day in expectation of the latest PR catastrophe to hit the party. Why would you keep doing this unless you actually liked the taste? A lot of people pay good money for the chance to be brutally humiliated, so I would not be at all surprised if ACT harboured a disproportionately large number of S&M aficionados. And Black Caps fans.
You would have to enjoy punishment to hang in there after watching your entire party leadership be destroyed by an outsider, who then proceeds to play cynical politics by putting up in Epsom a moral conservative whose best days are long past and whose views on many topics are anathema to the libertarian wing of the party.
And it’s only getting worse for ACT. National’s colourless candidate for Epsom, Paul Goldsmith, has been almost begging people not to vote for him, and yet the latest opinion poll suggests he’ll win the electorate. Some people have speculated that the good folk of Epsom are planning to vote National because they have had enough of being insulted. But if that were the case why vote for the candidate who doesn’t want their vote? Why not vote for a candidate who actually wants to win and also doesn’t belong to a lunatic party?
That could be why Labour’s David Parker is closing in on Banks in the latest poll. Will he win? It’s unlikely, and if Epsom did turn red we would probably see a mass flight from the area, as people fled down Gillies Avenue towards the motorway in their late model European cars and SUVs, looking back nervously in case the Red Guards should be on their tail.
It’s not a done deal, however, and if National ends up needing a couple of ACT MPs to form a government then the voters of Epsom will probably give a tick to the ACT candidate.
In that case spare a thought for the NZ First candidate who has been booted from his party for enjoying a tangy cup of wee. Would consuming a glass of your own urine be any more distasteful than voting strategically for the Mad Party candidate?
Friday, October 7, 2011
Banks To Roll Brash?
Fairfax NZ reports:
I'm no fan of the party, but even its (mostly former) supporters should be able to acknowledge that Brash's involvement with ACT has been a total failure, with the party sliding even more into irrelevancy and farce.
ACT's current polling is as dire as when Brash took over, and there seems to be little light at the end of the tunnel for the party. The move to recruit John Banks was a cynical one, because Banks is not a "real" ACT man, and is only there because he has value as an electoral lifeline. So it would serve Brash right if Banks ended up running the show.
It would probably also spell the end of ACT in the medium term, though the party might limp on for a year or two. I really cannot see how a moral conservative like John Banks could run and sustain a party founded on libertarian principles.
ACT leader Don Brash is rejecting speculation he is about to be rolled.
Reports yesterday suggested the party's board was about to dump the former National leader in favour of Epsom candidate John Banks.The chances of any party dumping its leader this close to an election seem slight, even if Dr Brash's leadership of ACT has been an unmitigated disaster. On the other hand, with ACT nothing would be a surprise.
Dr Brash has clashed with the board in recent weeks over a speech in which he backed decriminalising cannabis.
Insiders also brushed off the suggestion that Dr Brash would be deposed, saying the board would be "crazy" to throw the party into turmoil so close to the election.
Dr Brash said: " It's the biggest beat-up I've ever heard in my life."
I'm no fan of the party, but even its (mostly former) supporters should be able to acknowledge that Brash's involvement with ACT has been a total failure, with the party sliding even more into irrelevancy and farce.
ACT's current polling is as dire as when Brash took over, and there seems to be little light at the end of the tunnel for the party. The move to recruit John Banks was a cynical one, because Banks is not a "real" ACT man, and is only there because he has value as an electoral lifeline. So it would serve Brash right if Banks ended up running the show.
It would probably also spell the end of ACT in the medium term, though the party might limp on for a year or two. I really cannot see how a moral conservative like John Banks could run and sustain a party founded on libertarian principles.
Monday, June 20, 2011
The Electorate Battle Where Everyone Knows Everyone
The battle for the Epsom electorate is looking more uncertain than ever.
John Banks is the ACT candidate, but the two leading contenders for the National Party candidacy have previously worked closely with Banks.
Aaron Bhatnagar, one of the candidates, was John Banks' mayoral campaign manager, while the other candidate, Paul Goldsmith, was Banks' biographer.
To make matters more confusing, Goldsmith also wrote the biography of Don Brash, the leader of ACT.
It is yet to be seen whether National will push hard to win Epsom. If the gap between National and Labour closes before November (as I suspect it will), the Nats will be tempted to do a deal with ACT and campaign solely for the party vote. But the people putting their hands up for National are potentially strong candidates.
Even if Banks wins, on current polling he won't bring more than a couple of others into Parliament. They will likely all be rich old white guys. Not exactly the party for the future. Don Brash's promise of getting ACT to 15% looks even more preposterous than when he first made it. It must be heartbreaking for a politician like Brash to discover that most people actively hate him.
If one of Banks' mates gets the nod for National it will make an accommodation all that much easier.
A couple of other factors make the race even more uncertain. One is the left-vote factor. If I were a Labour voter in the electorate (and in the 2008 general election the Labour candidate got over 5000 votes) I'd vote strategically for the National candidate.
The other factor is Winston Peters. There has been speculation that he could run in Epsom, for no other reason than to make life difficult for ACT. But that was before Rodney Hide was dumped. With Hide gone I don't see any great benefit in NZ First running a strong candidate in Epsom, because it's likely NZ First would take more votes off National than it would ACT. Given that National won't work with Winston Peters, NZ First is in the perverse position of wanting National to win Epson so as to ensure National has few other options to form a government.
So the Epsom race will probably be the most fascinating of all electorate battles, barring Te Atatu, of course. But then I would say that.
John Banks is the ACT candidate, but the two leading contenders for the National Party candidacy have previously worked closely with Banks.
Aaron Bhatnagar, one of the candidates, was John Banks' mayoral campaign manager, while the other candidate, Paul Goldsmith, was Banks' biographer.
To make matters more confusing, Goldsmith also wrote the biography of Don Brash, the leader of ACT.
It is yet to be seen whether National will push hard to win Epsom. If the gap between National and Labour closes before November (as I suspect it will), the Nats will be tempted to do a deal with ACT and campaign solely for the party vote. But the people putting their hands up for National are potentially strong candidates.
Even if Banks wins, on current polling he won't bring more than a couple of others into Parliament. They will likely all be rich old white guys. Not exactly the party for the future. Don Brash's promise of getting ACT to 15% looks even more preposterous than when he first made it. It must be heartbreaking for a politician like Brash to discover that most people actively hate him.
If one of Banks' mates gets the nod for National it will make an accommodation all that much easier.
A couple of other factors make the race even more uncertain. One is the left-vote factor. If I were a Labour voter in the electorate (and in the 2008 general election the Labour candidate got over 5000 votes) I'd vote strategically for the National candidate.
The other factor is Winston Peters. There has been speculation that he could run in Epsom, for no other reason than to make life difficult for ACT. But that was before Rodney Hide was dumped. With Hide gone I don't see any great benefit in NZ First running a strong candidate in Epsom, because it's likely NZ First would take more votes off National than it would ACT. Given that National won't work with Winston Peters, NZ First is in the perverse position of wanting National to win Epson so as to ensure National has few other options to form a government.
So the Epsom race will probably be the most fascinating of all electorate battles, barring Te Atatu, of course. But then I would say that.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Banks Is Back
Former Auckland Mayor and former National MP John Banks is now the ACT candidate for Epsom.
He'll probably win the seat if the Nats don't put up a strong candidate to oust him.
My completely uninformed guess is that the Nats won't make a particular effort to win Epsom, now they will have someone in ACT they can work with. Don Brash may be offensive to the public (his polling is very poor for a new leader), but Banks doesn't carry the same baggage and has a strong network of supporters in the affluent eastern suburbs of Auckland.
On current polling ACT may get only three MPs in the next parliament, meaning Brash, Banks and one other. Probably not the hard-working Heather Roy, and probably not Hilary Calvert (who could best be described as "eccentric"), because Brash's past record suggests he is not keen on having too many women in positions of responsibility. So they'll probably choose Boscawen, or perhaps they'll resurrect another dinosaur, or find another crypt to crack open.
Anyway, it's good to finally see rich elderly white men getting a chance. They've had it rough these last few years.
He'll probably win the seat if the Nats don't put up a strong candidate to oust him.
My completely uninformed guess is that the Nats won't make a particular effort to win Epsom, now they will have someone in ACT they can work with. Don Brash may be offensive to the public (his polling is very poor for a new leader), but Banks doesn't carry the same baggage and has a strong network of supporters in the affluent eastern suburbs of Auckland.
On current polling ACT may get only three MPs in the next parliament, meaning Brash, Banks and one other. Probably not the hard-working Heather Roy, and probably not Hilary Calvert (who could best be described as "eccentric"), because Brash's past record suggests he is not keen on having too many women in positions of responsibility. So they'll probably choose Boscawen, or perhaps they'll resurrect another dinosaur, or find another crypt to crack open.
Anyway, it's good to finally see rich elderly white men getting a chance. They've had it rough these last few years.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)