What a minister does to deserve being driven out of parliament, (not just cabinet) is very much a matter of public concern.

Let’s say Worth was on the take as a hypothetical. Key confronts him asking for a cut. Worth says ‘fuck off John, find your own patsies’. Key sacks him because he lost confidence in him.

You could rightly say that that is nonsense and did not happen, but you are saying that we don’t have any reason to want to know. We do in fact.

As I said above, there is a public interest in knowing why Ministers get sacked, and more-so why MP’s get driven out of parliament. We don’t have many formal checks on the executive, most of our checks are political. That requires openness because if the public can’t see the reasons, they can’t judge them.

Your strawman about wanting to second guess every little decision misses the fact that an elected MP was railroaded out of parliament, because the PM for some reason didn’t want him in there anymore. That is no small thing.

If that railroading was legitimate, then what was Worth doing, and has it been sorted? but we don’t know if it was legitimate, do we? We are only allowed to guess, and assume.

Can you not see that a system of “elect the leaders then have checks and balances” does not mean you get to review every decision as you see fit? Try going in and asking to see all your employer’s emails because you want to check their decisions.

The Worth thing has cost us nothing. It’s not decision that needs “rounding out” to you or anyone else. If the basis of every decision needed to be laid out on the table for no reason other than your entertainment (and you’re still not offering up any explanation why other than “I’d like to know”), then politicians would never get anything important done.

What is your rule for disclosure, other than “I’d like to know”? The Official Information Act already contains a pretty comprehensive regime – is there something wrong with that?

Thanks for the “feeble mind” call – sort of confirms the “tosspot liberal ‘debating’ practice” theory mentioned above.

Frankly, there are more important things to deal with than explaining why the PM has chosen to replace a member of his team in whom he’s obviously lost confidence.

There’s “checks and balances” and then there’s over-the-top transparency obligations that don’t do anything to advance the public good. You’re getting wound up about the latter.

1. truthful statement
2. mistake
3. inadvertent error

etc.

The ‘quote’ you point out is exactly the same. If Bill is inaccurately paraphrasing Helen “in his usual misquoting style”, as you claim there is no difference between what Bill is paraphrasing, and what r0b is quoting as correct

take a look because it appears you have made a fool of yourself in your haste to jump in