Banks has got to go

182 comments on “Banks has got to go ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Carol 1

   29 April 2012 at 7:09 am

   Add to that list, Crushless Collins and Paula Benefit Buster.
   • David H 1.1

     29 April 2012 at 9:09 am

     And Paula Benefit getting a grilling on Q+A lol
2. tc 2

   29 April 2012 at 7:32 am

   What’s happening about Bennett breach of privacy issue btw, another example of ministers not fit for the posts.
   • mickysavage 2.1

     29 April 2012 at 8:03 am

     Aye TC.  

     This should be a half an hour job.  Fuller had private information held by WINZ concerning her benefit entitlement, Bennett accessed this information and then published it in an attempt to harass and shame Fuller.  This breaches various privacy principles and a sanction should follow.  

     A member of the Privacy Commission is welcome to copy this text, pad it out a bit, work out the sanction and then issue a decision.  It is astounding it has taken this long to finalise. 
3. Pete George 3

   29 April 2012 at 7:56 am

   If you are going to demand resignations from everyone who’s competence you doubt are you going to go through Labour MPs as well? National’s continued poll support is as much due to a lack of competent opposition.
   • mickysavage 3.1

     29 April 2012 at 8:00 am

     The coiffured one should be at the front of the list.
   • IrishBill 3.2

     29 April 2012 at 9:19 am

     Pete, could you give us a list of Dunne’s accomplishments?
     • Pete George 3.2.1

       29 April 2012 at 9:33 am

       Off topic here – do you want me to do that on OM?
       Would it make any difference to anyone’s view here?
       If I thought it might I’d have a go, but seems a bit futile.
   • Dr Terry 3.3

     29 April 2012 at 1:55 pm

     Yes, Pete, I entirely agree. It all began with the disaster of making Shearer the Leader; Cunliffe, predictably, is about the only one who demonstrates intelligence, but what a lonely battle he has to fight!
     Never forget, the Greens are a strong Party now, they have clearly stated policies and they demonstrate intelligence and motivation. There IS an option!
     • Vicky32 3.3.1

       29 April 2012 at 5:43 pm

       Yes, Pete, I entirely agree. It all began with the disaster of making Shearer the Leader; Cunliffe, predictably, is about the only one who demonstrates intelligence, but what a lonely battle he has to fight!
       Never forget, the Greens are a strong Party now, they have clearly stated policies and they demonstrate intelligence and motivation. There IS an option!

       Following is my nth plea for some reasons as to why Shearer is evil, bad. wrong and has to go? Or are all the anti-Shearer people here actually Green supporters?
       I keep asking, my question keeps being ignored. As I pointed out before (at least twice, probably 4 times now) Shearer’s Finland speech was massively mis-quoted here to make him sound like a righty. Was gibt?
       • Jackal 3.3.1.1

         29 April 2012 at 7:31 pm

         I very much doubt that those bagging Shearer are Green supporters Vicky32. It’s an old trick… say someone is bad often enough and some people will believe it. Without any real evidence of any wrongdoing by Shearer, all the rightwing have is to say he is bad! Don’t expect them to stump up with any evidence anytime soon.

         Back to the topic: Peter Dunne should also go because he misled voters into thinking he was against asset sales and then turned around and supported National’s economic treason. He has more recently promoted National saying that the suicide rate is falling when that is factually and statistically incorrect.

         Tim Groser should go because he keeps abusing his expense budget, Phil Heatley should go because he misled the house saying there is no fracking water contamination in New Zealand when it has been documented and Shane Ardern should go for bullying and blackmailing the Taranaki District Council and introducing the Cold Creek Rural Water Supply (privatizing water) Bill that he will directly benefit from.

         Are there any Natz that aren’t corrupt?
         • Vicky32 3.3.1.1.1

           29 April 2012 at 7:39 pm

           I very much doubt that those bagging Shearer are Green supporters Vicky32.

           Ah, thanks, I had wondered….
4. fustercluck 4

   29 April 2012 at 8:11 am

   Now that the full extent of their cronyism has been revealed they will fight tooth and nail to keep power for as long as possible no matter the consequences. They will be more brazen in handing out favors to their mates than ever before and will become ever more deaf to the voice of the NZ public.
5. Pete George 5

   29 April 2012 at 8:26 am

   David Garrett seems to have some knowledge of what happened with Banks and Dotcom. Yesterday:

   I have it on good authority that the Dotcom donation(s) have emerged because Banks didn’t want to know the fat man in his hour of need in Mt Eden…Apparently Mr Dotcom was being badly treated in some way and asked who the MP for the Mt Eden Prison area was….but said MP was most ungracious to his beneficient donor, and didn’t want a bar of him…didnt even know him…Said beneficient donor took great umbridge at this…as you would …and decided to tell all…

   http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/04/the_dotcom_banks_donation.html#comment-961407

   And just now: Game over for Banks.

   http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/04/the_dotcom_banks_donation.html#comment-961594

   Doesn’t look flash for Banks, ok, Act was already in dissaray but Banks seems to have made things worse rather than breathing life into a party corpse.

   The upside could be a better replacement in Epsom.
   • Kiwi Pete 5.1

     29 April 2012 at 3:51 pm

     John Banks should change his name to John.co.nz to reflect the nature of his backer. Then he could change the name of ACT (Association of Consumers and Taxpayers) to GAB (German Association of Billionaires).
6. Pete George 6

   29 April 2012 at 9:00 am

   This suggests Banks may have a loophole escape – if he can show he didn’t know about the details in advance (but there is some doubt on the this).

   Political candidates are required by law to declare donations if they know who made them. Breaches are punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000.

   University of Otago Faculty of Law professor Andrew Geddis said candidates were allowed to meet potential donors and advise them how to give anonymous donations.

   “If the candidate subsequently learns a large ‘anonymous’ donation was made to her or his campaign in the days after the conversation, the candidate can claim not to know who it came from,” Geddis said.

   He said it would be “a bit odd” and “in tension with the spirit of the law” if Banks asked for the donation to be split in two.

   “It makes no difference to the requirement to disclose if the donation comes in one $50,000 amount or two $25,000 payments. Both have to be declared.

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10802167
   • freedom 6.1

     29 April 2012 at 9:07 am

     Pete, does your weathervane value system have any connection to your brain stem?

     If it looks like a duck, floats like a duck and quacks like a duck
     somehow in your mind it is always a hamster on a lilo
     • David H 6.1.1

       29 April 2012 at 9:14 am

       Or Barney the Purple friggin Dinosaur.
     • RedLogix 6.1.2

       29 April 2012 at 10:55 am

       hamster on a lilo I’m so gonna remember that one 🙂
       • Te Reo Putake 6.1.2.1

         29 April 2012 at 11:59 am

         Lilo’s are so last year. Hamsters on pianos is where its at!
   • ghostwhowalksnz 6.2

     29 April 2012 at 9:59 am

     You forget that the cheque books were whipped out while in Bank presence. Its the “knowingly made a false return ” bit that has him cornered here.
     • Pete George 6.2.1

       29 April 2012 at 10:07 am

       That’s still just an allegation – but determined avoidance of questions don’t make Bank’s position look very strong.

       Banks is claiming he didn’t “knowingly made a false return”, but that could amount to nothing more than “avoidance via a loophole and the use of creative interpretation of the rules”.
       • McFlock 6.2.1.1

         29 April 2012 at 2:34 pm

         Pete, the entire suggestion of a meeting where banks offered advice about anonymous donating is just “an allegation”. Payment by cheque is part of that allegation.
   • Matt 6.3

     29 April 2012 at 10:56 am

     Say you have x number of people wanting to donate $25K to your campaign, then in order to hide the origin you just say “OK, go ahead and donate but don’t identify yourself”, therefore you could claim that, in spite of knowing you got $25K from each of these people, you could claim ignorance since you didn’t know exactly which $25K came from whom? 100% pure bullshit!
     • North 6.3.1

       29 April 2012 at 1:47 pm

       Claiming ignorance does not cut the mustard.

       Even if Banks does do that in an enquiry or in court he’s still GOT to call Dotcom a liar about events at the mansion on that fund-raising mission which he would also have to swear was NOT a fund-raising mission at all. Embarrassingly hollow and inefficaceous without that.

       Daily, thousands of people in NZ and in rule-of- law jurisdictions all over the word claim ignorance of this or that when trying to extricate. Simply claiming is not the end of the matter. The claim has to be believed. It has to overcome the totality of the evidence. Not a hope in hell that the now known totality could be overcome.

       Remember too that we don’t yet know what Dotcom’s senior helpers say. I make the assumption that whatever they say will not stamp Dotcom the liar. The totality expands.

       Perhaps when Banks appears in court his counsel can seek a health assessor’s report to appraise the court of any nexus between a staggering sense of entitlement and the alleged offending.
   • McFlock 6.4

     29 April 2012 at 2:32 pm

     Shame that the same source about giving advice on anonymous donations also says he paid by named cheque.
   • Kiwi Pete 6.5

     29 April 2012 at 3:36 pm

     Banks has the same problem with his definition of “anonymous” as Bill Clinton had with “is”.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

     “Bill Clinton, while being questioned about Monica Lewinsky, brilliantly sends the questioning in a new direction. To determine the meaning of the word “is”.

     Here’s what Bill Clinton said to the grand jury about why he wasn’t lying when he said to his top aides that with respect to Monica Lewinsky, “there’s nothing going on between us.” How can this be? Here’s what Clinton told the grand jury (according to footnote 1,128 in Starr’s report):

     “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the–if he–if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not–that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement….Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.””
7. AnnaLiviaPluraBella 7

   29 April 2012 at 9:19 am

   The Sunday Star Times is a “John Banks Free” paper today (on-line Edition). I bet $20 that he had heavy lawyers call and fax them yesterday. This is the Newspaper for the City hosting NZ’s Parliament: and they do not have a squeak on the biggest political story of the day. What a gutless bunch!
   • VeniVidiVici 7.1

     29 April 2012 at 9:33 am

     Yeah, more shock! horror! stories about the evils of naturism on BoP beaches as told by “shocked local residents”. Where is corroboration, evidence, data, legal definitions, crime stats, or investigation of urban encroachment ?

     It is no wonder that anyone with half a brain and a pulse is heading overseas.
   • ghostwhowalksnz 7.2

     29 April 2012 at 10:04 am

     Dont be silly.
     It was a breaking story by another paper, why give them headlines/credit as well.
8. Pete George 8

   29 April 2012 at 9:30 am

   Looks like Key is distancing himself:

   Prime Minister wades in to Banks electoral debate

   However in a statement to RadioLIVE a spokesperson for the Prime Minister says John Banks has assured him he has stayed within the electoral rules at all times.

   It went on to say that if people have concerns about Mr Banks’ mayoral campaign, those concerns should be taken to the relevant authorities.

   Banks can’t bank on Key support.
   • Te Reo Putake 8.1

     29 April 2012 at 9:38 am

     As I posted yesterday, Pete, it wouldn’t be at all unlikely that one of the $25k ‘anonymous’ donations came from well known Hawaiian businessman John Philip Key. Perhaps someone should ask him if he donated to the Banks campaign. Maybe in Parliament, if the MSM don’t have the gumption?
   • Clashman 8.2

     29 April 2012 at 9:59 am

     “However in a statement to RadioLIVE a spokesperson for the Prime Minister says John Banks has assured him …..

     Didn’t Key say that Nick Smith had assurred him blah blah blah…?
     • bbfloyd 8.2.1

       29 April 2012 at 11:45 am

       they all did just before they stepped down…. i’d have thought captain panic pants would have taught “sparkles” a new answer by now…..

       maybe he’s reached saturation point, and can’t do anything but keep repeating the lines he spent learning by rote when still shiny and new as a pollie….

       they could do a spongebob on him, and clear everything out to make room for the new stuff….as long as they don’t clear his name out of his memory banks, it should work well…

       it’s not as if he needs to be that flash, considering the amount of help, and protection he’s being given by tvnz, and print media….
   • Draco T Bastard 8.3

     29 April 2012 at 12:18 pm

     You know, that’s remarkably similar to what Helen Clark said when NACT attacked Winston over the Owen Glenn donation.
9. AnnaLiviaPluraBella 9

   29 April 2012 at 9:39 am

   What should be the Auckland Labour Party strategy for the Epsom by-election?
   1. All Auckland Electorate MPs, plus David Parker who contended Epsom, should jointly file a complaint with the police, in a very public walk to the Auckland Police HQ.
   2. Auckland Labour should draft a petition for the removal of Banks and go door-to-door in Epsom to have it signed.
   3. Labour should propose a candidate that the non National/Act parties will support for the balance of this term only. Ideally someone with significant mana and with no ambition to run again (old).
   4. Auckland Labour shoud use this as a rallying issue for people to be more connected with Politics: national and local. Politics can’t be left to the Politicians and Media: that is why a bully like Banks got so far.
   • ghostwhowalksnz 9.1

     29 April 2012 at 10:01 am

     First the strategy is to get Banks to resign. And raise merry hell until he does
     All the rest is ‘counting your chickens’
     • Jenny 9.1.1

       29 April 2012 at 12:50 pm

       Banks will never resign. He will have to be charged and found guilty, before there is any chance of a by-election.

       Ghost, I think that, ALPB is suggesting a public pressure strategy demanding Crown action be taken against Banks.

       I would like to suggest that all the other non-ACT/National candidates who stood in Epsom also be invited to stand with David Parker and the head of a “very public walk to the Auckland Police HQ.” demanding that charges are brought. That this walk start in Epsom and that all members of the public along the route also be invited to attend.

       Whether the Crown acts or not, the very public exposure of this piece of sleaze will be very hard for this administration to distance itself from.
10. captain hook 10

    29 April 2012 at 9:39 am

    never trust a politician who rides a hardly davison.
    they might think they are sons of anarchy but mainly they are just sons of bitches.
    • ghostwhowalksnz 10.1

      29 April 2012 at 10:02 am

      Phil was an occasional motorbike rider, your point is ?
      • Shona 10.1.1

        29 April 2012 at 10:54 am

        Phil still rides ( a Jappa) but has never been a poseur on a Harley Davidson( farting armchairs). Like so many in this age group his first vehicle was a motorbike because they were an affordable form of personal transport.
        • Clashman 10.1.1.1

          29 April 2012 at 11:02 am

          Pretty sure Phil rides a Triumph.
      • cardassian 10.1.2

        29 April 2012 at 1:14 pm

        .
    • mike e 10.2

      29 April 2012 at 11:27 am

      Hook There is always a chance the life of Brian Tamaki’s Destiny political wing will want Banksie
11. marsman 11

    29 April 2012 at 10:08 am

    If there is a by-election in Epsom and a National Candidate wins does that give National an extra seat apart from the winning candidate? And if so why then did they not try and win Epsom because they would then have had more seats in total?
    • Pete George 11.1

      29 April 2012 at 10:13 am

      If National had won the Epsom seat they would have no more MPs, they’d have got one less off the list.

      If Act had got more party vote and got more MPs in off there list it would have been several seats for the votes of one seat.

      So there were big potential advantages for National in helping Act win Epsom.
      • mike e 11.1.1

        29 April 2012 at 11:32 am

        Pompous Git with stategy like yours no wonder unbalanced follicles have only one seat and waste everybody else’ s vote.
        Act is F*^#@d even Banks recognized that at the last election.
        • Pete George 11.1.1.1

          29 April 2012 at 3:36 pm

          Odd response, what I said was simply explaining a question asked. But I guess you’ve never needed an actual reason to launch into abuse.
      • jack 11.1.2

        29 April 2012 at 6:51 pm

        Peter, wouldn’t the national mp just replace the Act mp? WOuldn’t that be better for National if they did get the electorate in Epsom?
    • muzza 11.2

      29 April 2012 at 10:14 am

      Natiomal worked a double dip, hoping to gain an extra “right team member” via Banks. If National won Epsom, ACT would not exist, where as Goldsmith was high enough up the Nats list, and on the party vote national expected to get, they figured the best strategy was to back Banks for Epsom…
    • Anne 11.3

      29 April 2012 at 10:24 am

      Pehaps they were hoping ACT would do better than they did and bring in one or two extra MPs. That would have improved their overall parliamentary majority.
      • Colonial Viper 11.3.1

        29 April 2012 at 10:26 am

        Yes. that’s exactly what they were hoping, but the electorate were in no mood for it after National’s corporate takeover of ACT, the dumping of all their women MPs and the teapot tapes.
    • Lanthanide 11.4

      29 April 2012 at 11:25 am

      marsman – none of the other replies have fully addressed your questions.

      The situation in Epsom comes down to the electorate vs list MP situation.

      With Banks winning Epsom, we have 121 MPs in parliament and the government with a (slim) majority of 61 seats. If Goldsmith or Parker had won Epsom instead, we would have only 120 MPs and the government would have 60 seats only, not enough for an outright majority required to pass legislation. This is because Goldsmith and Parker both got into parliament on the party vote from National and Labour, whereas Banks wouldn’t have gotten in due to Act’s dismal party vote.

      So at the general election, it was important for Act to win Epsom.

      Now however, if there is a by-election, all party vote and list seats are frozen as they were at the GE, meaning after the by-election we will continue to have 121 MPs in parliament. There are a few outcomes here:
      1. If someone who is presently not in parliament at all wins the seat (say Penny Bright), then they would come in as the MP for Epsom.
      2. If someone who is currently in parliament on the list wins the seat (say Goldsmith), then they would become the MP for Epsom and the next person off the party list would enter parliament to take their vacant seat.

      I think the only way we could get back down to a (permanent) 120 seat parliament would be if a party in parliament had a list seat vacant and everyone else on the party list who didn’t make it into parliament declined to take the seat. In practice this would never happen.

      So a by-election in Epsom could reduce the government to 60/121 votes if any of the opposition parties win it, or an independent won it. If National, ACT or UF win it then they would continue to have their 61 seat majority. Most likely National or ACT would win the seat if it goes to a by-election.
      • Colonial Viper 11.4.1

        29 April 2012 at 11:37 am

        Nice complete answer.

        Guess what. Many more people are going to realise that John Key is governing with a majority of not quite fuck all.
        • Lanthanide 11.4.1.1

          29 April 2012 at 11:40 am

          Yeah, a by-election in Epsom could be what Collin Craig needs to get into parliament.

          I think Labour/Greens should wise up and not stand anyone; put their weight behind whatever contender will let them overthrow asset sales. Winston could stand for example.
          • felix 11.4.1.1.1

            29 April 2012 at 12:10 pm

            I reckon Craig would be a better horse to back in Epsom. Based on nothing in particular.
      • Jenny 11.4.2

        29 April 2012 at 1:25 pm

        This is a conservative seat if Banks is dismissed only a conservative could win it.

        In my opinion, Goldsmith is a weak candidate and after thi is a damaged brand and is already in parliament anyway. All this makes him vulnerable to being tumbled if he is the one National puts up.

        Maybe a strategy for the left could be to agree on some acceptable (principled) independent.

        Who could this person be?

        I have no idea.

        But to be a serious candidate;

        There are some qualities a serious candidate would need to win over the ACT/National electoral jack up.

        This person would have to have a public profile,

        This person would have to be someone with a conservative preferably business background.

        Someone with an anti-corruption background maybe.

        Someone with no clear political party affiliation or history.

        An original thinker able to make their own judgements.

        To get the backing of the left as well as the support of the voters of Epsom.

        This person would have to be someone who could work with the left, or who the left could at least be comfortable with. Able to agree to at least one policy dear to the left.

        As for Colin Craig, I think he fails to make this list as he is hostile to the left and so would be as bad or worse than an ACT or Nat candidate.
        • Salsy 11.4.2.1

          29 April 2012 at 2:12 pm

          This person would have to have a public profile,
          This person would have to be someone with a conservative preferably business background.
          Someone with an anti-corruption background maybe.
          Someone with no clear political party affiliation or history.
          An original thinker able to make their own judgements.

          Sounds like Penny Bright 🙂
          • Jenny 11.4.2.1.1

            29 April 2012 at 7:37 pm

            I was thinking of someone more like this guy.

            A conservative, a business man, principled, no party affiliation, and an original thinker.

            Could he win?

            Could he be convinced to make this sacrifice necessary to serve his country?

            Could/should he get the necessary political backing?
        • felix 11.4.2.2

          29 April 2012 at 3:37 pm

          Hi Penny. “As for Colin Craig, I think he fails to make this list as he is hostile to the left and so would be as bad or worse than an ACT or Nat candidate.”

          Except that he staunchly opposes selling our assets, so on that issue at least he’s far less “hostile to the left” than United Future or the Maori Party.
      • alwyn 11.4.3

        29 April 2012 at 3:11 pm

        I’m afraid that a lot of this comment is wrong.
        In particular you suggest that Banks winning Epsom is the reason that there are 121 members. It is not. It wouldn’t have mattered who won Epsom. The reason there are 121 members is solely due to the Maori party winning 3 electorates when there party vote only entitled them to 2 seats. That is the sole and only overhang seat in the house.
        You also talk about the Government having 60 or 61 votes. The Government is comprised of those parties that give it their votes on confidence and supply. That is National, Maori, ACT and United Future, ie 64 votes. Perhaps you haven’t noticed, or prefer not to count, the Maori party. Does it offend you that they support National, are part of the Government and hold Ministerial portfolios?
        I think my next statement is true but I am remembering back to the election and I can’t really be bothered doing the calculation again BUT. If Banks had not won it was National who would have got the next list seat. They would have been entitled to 60, not 59, seats after the election. They wouldn’t have found it necessary to have Banks as they would have had the same number of seats as their current 59 plus his seat. That was, of course a quirk, in the exact voting numbers that happened in the poll.
        Note of course that it can be quite handy to have a support party to use as a reason for doing things that were not necesarrily in your own election manifesto, eg Charter schools. Labour did the same with Jim Anderton.
        • McFlock 11.4.3.1

          29 April 2012 at 3:21 pm

          Apart from the factthat the Maori Party and even UF might find some principle and not support the worst of nact policies, especially asset sales.
          Without banks/act, key can’t sell the country down the river quite as much as he wants to.
          • alwyn 11.4.3.1.1

            29 April 2012 at 3:35 pm

            I have checked my comment about who would have got the next list seat and I was right.
            If Banks had not won Epsom, and assumng it was won by a Nat or Labour candidate, then National would have been entitled to 60 and not 59 seats in the current parliament.
            • Pete George 11.4.3.1.1.1

              29 April 2012 at 3:41 pm

              Thanks alwyn, that’s a good explanation of the Epsom situation.

              If this blows up enough on Banks and he resigns and there’s a byelection in Epsom it will be interesting to see if National just go for the seat themselves or try to keep Act in parliament. What they do would be simply a vote on Act’s survival as unlike in the general election there’s only one seat at stake.
              • felix …

                29 April 2012 at 3:46 pm

                Does ACT still really exist though? Apart from as a formality?
                • Pete George …

                  29 April 2012 at 3:54 pm

                  Sort of, they’ve just had an annual conference.

                  They could come back if Banks resigns and a real Act candidate stands and is allowed to win by National and the voters.

                  Another aspect of a by-election – there is not the same voter incentive to get more bang for their vote, so that may change some decisions.
                  • felix …

                    29 April 2012 at 4:10 pm

                    I wonder if National would step aside for a “real ACT candidate”?

                    I suspect they’d rather have a Nat in drag like Banksie (well obviously not exactly like Banksie who they’re probably kicking themselves about now) or just put up their own.
              • ianmac …

                29 April 2012 at 4:22 pm

                To keep ACT going John Key could help by umm….. having a cup of tea in with the Act candidate in front of a large contigent of MSM. Now there’s a good idea!
            • McFlock 11.4.3.1.1.2

              29 April 2012 at 4:02 pm

              ISTR this being discussed before. Wasn’t there something about seat numbers being allocated on writ day, so if banks goes and there’s a by-election that national win, they lose a list seat for the electorate one?
               
              • Pete George …

                29 April 2012 at 4:07 pm

                I don’t think so, I think the number of list seats per party are set once and remain for the duration of the term. Otherwise we’d have had a situation last term where if Hide had lost Epsom Act could have lost all five seats.

                An intersting comment by Hide recently – he said when he was rolled last year Brash wanted a by election then.
              • alwyn …

                29 April 2012 at 4:13 pm

                There are three situations that are possible. I am assuming in every case that National were to win a, hypothetical, by-election.
                If National ran with a candidate who is not currently in Parliament that person would become the MP for Epsom and nothing else would change. National 60 seats.
                If an existing list MP ran, and resigned their list place before the final announcement of results (about 3 weeks after election day) they would become the MP for Epsom and another National list candidate would take their list place. Again National 60 seats.
                If a list member ran and DIDN’T resign their list place before the final results were announced they would become the MP for Epsom and would NOT be replaced as a list member.
                I suspect in the final case they would also be hurled out of a very high window by the party hierarchy.
                • McFlock …

                  29 April 2012 at 10:15 pm

                  Ah, seems to be correct:

                  A by-election result can change the proportionality of Parliament that was determined at the preceding general election (for example, if a by-election is won by a candidate representing a different party from that of the member who vacated his or her seat).

                  The question then becomes: what is the bonus for national in keeping act alive? A party that’s been on life support for years, and delivers but one seat for all the embarrassment it causes. With the conservatives on the horizon as a ossible replacement with the right nurturing?
                      
                  With any luck, the nats might decide to put act out of everyone else’s misery…
                   
      • freedom 11.4.4

        29 April 2012 at 4:14 pm

        “2. If someone who is currently in parliament on the list wins the seat (say Goldsmith), then they would become the MP for Epsom and the next person off the party list would enter parliament to take their vacant seat.”
        sorry for my ignorance but i don’t understand how that can happen.
        If you are already a sitting MP, how can you stand for an electoral seat that for whatever reason becomes vacant in the same term ?
        • alwyn 11.4.4.1

          29 April 2012 at 5:29 pm

          The simple answer is because the electoral law allows it.
          When Helen Clark quit in 2009 there were no fewer than three list MPs who stood in the election.
          There probably would have been four if the Labour party hadn’t lost their nerve. David Parker, who was a list MP, wanted the nomination and would probably have got it except that National supporters like Farrar proposed that National campaign on the basis that a vote for Labour in the by-election would be a vote for Judith Tizard to come back to Parliament. If Parker had won the seat his list seat would then have been taken by the, purportedly, unpopular Judith.
          Labour then ran around in little circles and brought in David Shearer as being someone who was not a list MP and who couldn’t then be linked to Tizard’s return.
          I imagine the Labour faithful still deny it but that is the way it happened.
          • alwyn 11.4.4.1.1

            29 April 2012 at 5:43 pm

            Sorry, my brain is mis-firing.
            It was Phil Twyford, not David Parker, who wanted the nomination.
      • Stephen Doyle 11.4.5

        29 April 2012 at 4:28 pm

        Which is why I would not be surprised if Key cut him loose. it will make Key look strong, and may distract from the casino fiasco. They can always find another donkey to stand for Act in 2014.
12. Tom Barker 12

    29 April 2012 at 10:29 am

    Poor Banksie. Let’s hope he doesn’t end up sharing a cell at Mt Eden with a huge German guy with a grievance.
    • burt 12.1

      29 April 2012 at 10:36 am

      Sharing a cell…. what… with Winston ?
      • Colonial Viper 12.1.1

        29 April 2012 at 10:43 am

        Winston is German???
        • burt 12.1.1.1

          29 April 2012 at 10:53 am

          Not that I’m aware of. I think he’s Italian … ha ha ha.

          But seriously – why would Banks end up sharing a cell with anyone. I think his biggest punishment will be he needs to make a big “NO” sign… he might get a slap on the wrist from the privileges committee and he might find the only party prepared to accept him if required to form a government is Labour..

          Oh shit… that last bit really is major punishment isn’t it – talk about lay down with dogs….
          • RedLogix 12.1.1.1.1

            29 April 2012 at 11:12 am

            You keep falling over yourself to derail the thread onto Peters who was thoroughly investigated and cleared…. some years ago.

            So are you telling you’re just fine with Banks then?
            • burt 12.1.1.1.1.1

              29 April 2012 at 11:30 am

              Hell no. If Banks has broken the rules he should stand in court. It’s that simple. You know, that unlikely thing – accountability !

              I’m wonder what sort of defense the partisans will mount while telling us there is nothing to see here and we need to move on. But google will provide rich fodder mocking both sides of the “It’s OK when it’s in our teams best interest” dim-bulbs.
            • burt 12.1.1.1.1.2

              29 April 2012 at 11:30 am

              Lets hope the most serious punishment isn’t being required to re-file a few years returns….
            • burt 12.1.1.1.1.3

              29 April 2012 at 11:35 am

              Peters who was thoroughly investigated and cleared….

              Cleared… He wasn’t charged – apparently that’s the standard required to be deemed acceptable when numbers are required to form a government.
              • felix …

                29 April 2012 at 11:50 am

                Why wasn’t he charged with anything burt?
              • burt …

                29 April 2012 at 11:57 am

                felix

                Apparently rorting the electoral funding laws and misleading parliament and the people isn’t an offense…… Either that or the 6 month statute of limitations for that offense had lapsed by the time the details were clarified enough to lay a charge….

                But lets say… Banks is found to have been dishonest with his returns, he is required to re-file his returns and admit he didn’t follow the law with regard to disclosure. BUT he isn’t charged – is he now “Cleared” ??????
                • felix …

                  29 April 2012 at 12:11 pm

                  I don’t understand. Was there an offense or not?
                  • burt …

                    29 April 2012 at 12:13 pm

                    felix

                    Play the Labour supporter card…. good on you. Hey lets decide if Banks did anything wrong based on if there is a charge or not. I’m picking you are sufficiently cornered that you will need to agree with that.
                    • felix …

                      29 April 2012 at 12:21 pm

                      I asked if there was an offense. I think we all know there were no charges.
                    • burt …

                      29 April 2012 at 12:24 pm

                      Was there an offense ? I already said;

                      Apparently rorting the electoral funding laws and misleading parliament and the people isn’t an offense……

                      Is taking that stance for Banks sitting as well with you as it was with Peters ?
                    • felix …

                      29 April 2012 at 12:29 pm

                      burt, I get confused when you use multiple layers of sarcasm to make your points. Half the time it ends up being some obscure reference to something Helen Clark thought in a dream.

                      Can you say – like, just say, straight up – whether there was an offense committed by Winston Peters or not?
                    • burt …

                      29 April 2012 at 2:11 pm

                      felix

                      The best reference is possibly this;
                      Electoral Commission.

                      It was never tested in court because it couldn’t be – that we know for sure. The statute of limitations to charge had definitely expired. I’m wondering if that’s the case with Banks, if so what’s the circus about we just need to move on – right ?

                      I say bullshit to that for Banks, like I did for Winston. I don’t see what your problem is? Which way do you want this process to work or do you get to choose each time?
                    • felix …

                      29 April 2012 at 3:25 pm

                      “if so what’s the circus about we just need to move on – right ?”

                      I can’t tell if this is something you’re accusing me of saying, or thinking, or of someone else saying or thinking. It’s very hard to know with you.

                      I do wish you would just speak plainly for a change.

                      What exactly are you accusing me of? No sarcasm this time please.
                    • burt …

                      29 April 2012 at 3:50 pm

                      felix

                      It’s impossible to have a sensible conversation with you when you won’t answer a single question I ask. How can I possibly know what I’m dealing with.

                      Here they are – the unanswered questions from just this exchange;

                      But lets say… Banks is found to have been dishonest with his returns, he is required to re-file his returns and admit he didn’t follow the law with regard to disclosure. BUT he isn’t charged – is he now “Cleared” ??????

                      Is taking that stance for Banks sitting as well with you as it was with Peters ?

                      In the context of statute of limitations…

                      I’m wondering if that’s the case with Banks (the time limit has already expired), if so what’s the circus about we just need to move on – right ?

                      With regard to the process for dealing with false returns;

                      Which way do you want this process to work (the Winston way or the ‘accountability’ way) or do you get to choose each time?
                    • felix …

                      29 April 2012 at 4:51 pm

                      Sorry burt, I don’t see how either of those questions relate to anything I’ve said. I’m not even sure I can see what the question is in the sentence ending in “right?”

                      Thank you for the link though. It states very clearly that there was no offense, so that’s that out of the way at least.
                  • burt …

                    29 April 2012 at 12:16 pm

                    felix

                    But lets say… Banks is found to have been dishonest with his returns, he is required to re-file his returns and admit he didn’t follow the law with regard to disclosure. BUT he isn’t charged – is he now “Cleared” ??????

                    Can you answer this question felix ? Perhaps a Yes or a No ????
                    • felix …

                      29 April 2012 at 12:23 pm

                      Why would I? I haven’t said anything about anyone being cleared.
                    • Akldnut …

                      29 April 2012 at 8:10 pm

                      Burt how can you be cleared of wrong doing or a crime if you haven’t been charged with it.?
            • burt 12.1.1.1.1.4

              29 April 2012 at 12:09 pm

              RedLogix

              You keep falling over yourself to derail the thread onto Peters who was thoroughly investigated and cleared…. some years ago.

              What’s your take on this scenario: Banks is found to have lied about his returns. He admits he received the donations and is required to re-file his returns to include the previously denied donations.

              BUT he isn’t charged – Is that “Cleared” ????
            • Pete George 12.1.1.1.1.5

              29 April 2012 at 12:34 pm

              Maybe it’s worth looking at the Peters funding history because there are similarities to this case.

              Peters attracted media attention in 2008 over controversial payments for legal services and party donations. He had received $100,000 in 2006 to fund legal costs of challenging the election of Bob Clarkson to the Tauranga electorate. The money came from Owen Glenn, a wealthy New Zealand businessman and philanthropist based in Monaco. Under parliamentary rules any gift to MPs over the value of $500 must be relinquished. Peters denied knowing about the source of the money but this was not corroborated by his lawyer Brian Henry and Glenn contradicted Peters’ denial.

              The Vela family, prominent in the racing industry, had donated $150,000 to Peters over a four year period. The payments were made in sums of $10,000 in order to remain within rules governing political party funding.

              The Dominion Post published details from New Zealand First sources that before the 2005 election $25,000 had been donated to the party from Bob Jones via the Spencer Trust. The Trust is administered by Wayne Peters, a brother of Winston Peters. Jones confirmed that he had paid the money to the Spencer Trust and was asked by Winston Peters to make the donation. Peters denies that he had asked Jones for a donation to the party. The donation was not declared to the Electoral Commission as required by law.

              On 29 August 2008, Peters offered to stand down from his portfolios as Foreign Affairs and Racing Minister, pending an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office as to whether the donations from Sir Robert Jones and the Vela brothers reached the New Zealand First party as intended. On 10 September 2008, Winston Peters gave evidence to the Privileges Committee of the New Zealand Parliament in an attempt to refute evidence given by Owen Glenn. The Privileges Committee returned a report on 22 September recommending that Peters be censured for “knowingly providing false or misleading information on a return of pecuniary interests”. Parliament passed a motion censuring Peters the following day. All but three of the parties in Parliament (New Zealand First, Labour, and Progressives who abstained) supported the censure.

              Peters was later cleared by the Serious Fraud Office with respect to political donations, however some matters were referred back to the Electoral Commission as it was determined that, while no fraud had taken place, some electoral law matters with regard to funding declarations were not complied with. The police subsequently decided that no offence had been committed.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Peters#Funding_controversies

              I think suggesting Peters was “thoroughly investigated and cleared” is a bit like holding up a No sign when the answer is Yes.
              • Draco T Bastard …

                29 April 2012 at 1:23 pm

                The evidence you present tells us that Winston was investigated and cleared and yet you claim that it says the opposite?
                • burt …

                  29 April 2012 at 2:47 pm

                  Draco

                  Is your take on this that when it’s never tested in court because it can’t be due to statute of limitations that we should therefore describe the case as ‘Cleared of any wrong doing’ ?

                  Is that a rule in itself or do we get to have our own opinions in these cases ?
                  • felix …

                    29 April 2012 at 3:31 pm

                    What’s this “statute of limitations” you’ve been talking about for the last day or so (and not, as far as I know, before that)?
                    • burt …

                      29 April 2012 at 3:54 pm

                      Here : Electoral Commission

                      You seem obsessed with this point being disproved felix. Is your entire premise of no charges were laid so nothing wrong was done looking pretty feeble against that reality check?
                    • Draco T Bastard …

                      29 April 2012 at 4:16 pm

                      Reading that it seems that there was human error (wrong advice) but no crime. The implication is that the ruling would also apply to the 2k5/6 returns. After all, the commission did ask for NZ1st to correct the records which means that they did ask but couldn’t press charges on it.
                    • felix …

                      29 April 2012 at 4:18 pm

                      “… your entire premise of no charges were laid so nothing wrong was done …”

                      Not my premise, burt. I think you might have lost track of who said what.

                      I don’t see anything in that pdf about a “statute of limitations” either. Can you tell me what it means? I notice you’ve only very recently started referring to it (I think) so I assume it’s either something new or something you’ve just found out about.

                      Care to share?
                    • burt …

                      29 April 2012 at 4:22 pm

                      On the very first page felix;

                      In respect of the 2005 and 2006 returns, the statutory time limit for any prosecution has expired. Correction of the public record is of principal concern.
                    • burt …

                      29 April 2012 at 4:24 pm

                      felix

                      You are such a soldier for Winston, your dedication is admirable.
                    • RedLogix …

                      29 April 2012 at 4:36 pm

                      I’ve been five hours in and out of Mitre Flats Hut and burt’s STILL derailing for Banksie.

                      Methinks I’ve spent my afternoon better….
                    • felix …

                      29 April 2012 at 4:46 pm

                      I saw that burt. But what is this “statute of limitations” you keep referring to. I don’t see it mentioned anywhere except in comments by you so I’m asking you what it means.

                      If you don’t want to say because it’s a secret or something, that’s ok but let me know if that’s the case so I can stop asking you to explain it.

                      I don’t think I’m soldiering for anyone burt. Perhaps you could tell me what it is exactly that you’re accusing me of, and show where I said/did whatever it is.

                      RedLogix I’m sure you’re right!
                    • McFlock …

                      29 April 2012 at 4:54 pm

                      Three identical issues, 2005 2006 2007.
                         
                      No offense  was committed in 2007.
                        
                      So even if the issues in 2005 and 2006 were not outside the statute of limitations for that offense, no offense would have been committed in 2005 and 2006.
                         
                      Unless you know of material differences between the alleged/hyped offenses, of course…
                    • Treetop …

                      29 April 2012 at 6:01 pm

                      The statue of limitations was first mentioned at 8.15 pm last night under Dodgy old Banksie. burt mentioned this in a response to my post numbered around 12.2.1.1.1. I responded to burt today at 1.32 pm.
              • jack …

                29 April 2012 at 7:03 pm

                Wish you people would leave Winston alone. He’s the only true opposition leader at the moment. I am not fond of the watermelons and side with Winston only because Key has been dissappointing and I wanted someone to be on his heels. They should name a sandle after Key, called the John Key sandle, flip flop flip flop.. that might be a good campaign against him 2014.
        • Fortran 12.1.1.2

          29 April 2012 at 1:17 pm

          Nah – Winston is Chinese having DNA with tribes in South East Taiwan – proven.
    • Te Reo Putake 12.2

      29 April 2012 at 11:04 am

      Double Bunker?
13. Pete George 13

    29 April 2012 at 11:02 am

    Who needs enemies when…

    Today, Mr Hide told NBR ONLINE the allegations were serious and need to be cleared up as quick as possible.

    “Mr Banks needs to stand down as minister, work with the police, and shut up until the until the investigation is completed,” Mr Hide said.

    “He needs to stand down to save the Prime Minister the embarrassment of having a minister under police investigation.”

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/banks-needs-stand-down-and-shut-hide-ck-117678

    …when you get friendly advice from your predecessor.
    • felix 13.1

      29 April 2012 at 11:27 am

      lol, reading that I can hear the (just) contained glee in Hide’s voice.
    • burt 13.2

      29 April 2012 at 11:32 am

      Vastly different to the red team eh… they gather around and protect. The blue team throw them to courts. This is possibly the only difference between Labour and National.
      • felix 13.2.1

        29 April 2012 at 11:48 am

        And the Yellow team, true to their core principles, remain entirely self-interested individuals 😉
      • Pascal's bookie 13.2.2

        29 April 2012 at 11:53 am

        What’s that you say? Has key stood him down? Laid a complaint with the police? Has Banks himself been forthright about what went down. or is he squirming? What’s the reaction to said squirming from the right?

        Hide is no-one.
        • burt 13.2.2.1

          29 April 2012 at 12:07 pm

          Yes what is the reaction from the partisans… It’s predictable, it’s a well used script. I think “move on” should pop out from their chief spin mister anytime now. Are you ready for “not in the public interest to prosecute” and … the biggest horror of all – banks might need to re-file some returns … oh the indignity…
          • Pascal's bookie 13.2.2.1.1

            29 April 2012 at 12:15 pm

            yeah, it’s as entirely predictable as you saying nonsense like:

            “Vastly different to the red team eh… they gather around and protect. The blue team throw them to courts.”

            What a load of shit.
    • mike e 13.3

      29 April 2012 at 11:51 am

      PG running with foxes and hunting with the hounds again,Maybe if the wind blows strong enough you are positioning your hair to change from blue rinse so he can form a coalition with the left next time!
      • Pete George 13.3.1

        29 April 2012 at 12:05 pm

        I’ve never been a fan or supporter of John Banks. While I supported having a small Act presence in parliament (when they were sort of ok) and agree with some of their principles I’ve never been an Act supporter or voter. Put another way, I’ve been a stronger Green supporter than an Act supporter.

        So I don’t know what you’re trying to get at, unless it’s just another “if you don’t agree with everything I agree with I’ll assocociate you with everything I disagree with”.
        • mike e 13.3.1.1

          29 April 2012 at 12:18 pm

          pg predictable hair splitting. make up your mind yellow blue now green wash
          • bad12 13.3.1.1.1

            29 April 2012 at 12:40 pm

            Anyway the wind blows seems to be where its at for the ‘hairdo from Ohariu’…
          • Pete George 13.3.1.1.2

            29 April 2012 at 12:43 pm

            I’m not into colour blindness. I’d rather look for and support good politicians and good policies.

            I reslsie that’s a bit of a difficult concept to people who have politically straightjacketed themselves.
        • millsy 13.3.1.2

          29 April 2012 at 1:14 pm

          On economic and welfare issues you have articulated ACT-like positions.

          So I suggest you put your hat down when you talks.
          • Pete George 13.3.1.2.1

            29 April 2012 at 3:50 pm

            No, I’m very mainstream on most economic and welfare issues, and Act isn’t mainstream, they’re floating away down the river at the moment.
14. O2B 14

    29 April 2012 at 11:35 am

    As an aside, if you were to write a cheque, when it came to the recipient banking it, wouldn’t they know who it was from?

    If the cheque was from XYZ Ltd, or Megaupload Ventures plc, couldn’t Banks write this in his declaration? And if he couldn’t, why not?

    Perhaps the notion of a ‘cheque’ is just a metaphor for two unmarked briefcases of $25,000 worth of non-sequential bills…
    • bad12 14.1

      29 April 2012 at 12:00 pm

      The Law seems relatively clear on the matter, if Banks as he appears to have took 2 cheques of 25 grand each off of DotCom and one of DotCom’ staff, banked those checks and later phoned DotCom after those checks had ‘cleared’ to thank Him for the donation then Banks has clearly acted outside the Law in doing so and Granny Herald can wave its dick in the air for as long as it likes,

      There is NO loophole here for Banks,if the facts are as we all have been given them then Banks has clearly broken the Law,(again),

      For Banks to have remained inside the Law He would have had to have given Dotcom the details of an account that Dotcom could make donations into…
15. Clashman 15

    29 April 2012 at 11:57 am

    “As an aside, if you were to write a cheque, when it came to the recipient banking it, wouldn’t they know who it was from?”

    Of course they do. Try sending a donation cheque to Al Qaeda and see if you don’t get a “visit” from someone.
16. bad12 16

    29 April 2012 at 12:06 pm

    What a hoot!!! Just heard John(the convicted) Banks on the news at 12 claiming to have nothing to fear and nothing to hide,

    Wrong on the first and right on the second as far as I can see, Banks is obviously shaking in His boots and there is no point now trying to hide what we all now know about…
    • burt 16.1

      29 April 2012 at 12:12 pm

      bad12

      What a hoot!!! Just heard John(the convicted) Banks on the news at 12 claiming to have nothing to fear and nothing to hide,

      I bet he wants to say it’s a political assassination – that the way he managed his donations is how he has always done it and therefore it must be legal…. Move on…

      Stand the prick in court ! That’s my take on it.
      • bad12 16.1.1

        29 April 2012 at 12:29 pm

        What I and probably many other want is a full investigation of ALL Banks’s electoral returns especially the other 25 grand donations that Banks has marked on His electoral return as ‘anonymous’,

        I had the pleasure of being in the Wellington District Court in the early 1990’s when Banks as Minister of Police received His first conviction,

        Banks at that time had trouble entering the dock and tried to push His Police liason officer Inspector Sharky into the dock ahead of Him,and once ensconced befor the judge where He should be Banks blamed everyone for His offending except of course Himself,

        Fun was hard to come by way back then as Ruthenaisa had taken a firm grip of the purse strings being viciously delivered by that thing Shiply,

        I found in Banks’s court appearance a perfect outlet to discuss with both Him and Inspector Sharky Banks crimanal mis-behaviour and the National Governments abhorent treatment of the economy which they were handling in the exact same manner as they are now,

        Needless to say Banks was unimpressed with my expressed views on Him and His Government although the Judge who’s chambers door was open throughout the exchange on His arrival in the main body of the court did seem rather amused…
        • AnnaLiviaPluraBella 16.1.1.1

          29 April 2012 at 12:56 pm

          For what crime did he receive a conviction, bad12??
          A bit more meat on the bones please.

          I recall him being dismissed from Cabinet by Bolger for conflict of interest while Tourism Minister. As minister he was funding a rescue package for the Waitangi Hotel. He had not disclosed that he was involved personally in a plan to take control of the business….
          • Te Reo Putake 16.1.1.1.1

            29 April 2012 at 1:00 pm

            Using a cellphone on an aircraft. Funny how quaint that seems now.
17. Maui 17

    29 April 2012 at 1:03 pm

    Kim DotCom has to clear his name in court.

    To do so he is distancing himself from Banks.

    This will be interesting.
    • bad12 17.1

      29 April 2012 at 1:14 pm

      Me-thinks you have got that a little bit round the wrong way, it would appear that after having been more than generous to Banks, Dotcom has been set upon by the FBI and the NZ Police,

      Rumor which at this point is unsubstantiated would suggest that it is in fact Banks after being elected as the ACT MP for the Epsom electorate who has run a mile from being associated in any way with Dotcom,

      It is clear from footage shown on ‘Campbell Live’,where Banks is shown not only toasting Dotcom at Dotcoms birthday party but also making arrangements for further talks/meetings that there is more than a casual relationship between Dotcom, Banks, and,their spouses,

      Thus far there has been NO evidence presented to show any offending of any sort by Dotcom and the only thing He could be remotely convicted of at this point is for having chosen a ludicrous name…
      • Maui 17.1.1

        29 April 2012 at 2:29 pm

        I agree with your first paragraph, but the second depends on the inferred direction of causality which is moot. I agree with the rest, and kim.com (or one of his legal entities) is facing proceedings in a US federal court in Los Angeles, as far as I can make out .. I am not holding my breath.

        Whichever way it goes, it spices up the political sphere .. and the blogosphere.

        My only reservation is that crowdsourcing a prosecution smacks a bit of digital frontier justice – a lynch mob.
        • bad12 17.1.1.1

          29 April 2012 at 3:48 pm

          Mmmm a lynch-mob,how does one of them work,are they common???,

          Crowd-sourcing a prosecution of Banks???,why not,the Law allows for ‘private prosecutions’ to be undertaken by those who feel strongly enough about a particular ‘crime’ that they will go to extra-ordinary lengths to see the perpetrator of that ‘crime’ be brought to Justice,

          The reason for such a prosecution would seem to be legitimate if there is a strong belief that, in this instance, Banks has in fact broken the electoral law covering anonymous donations,

          And in my opinion there is one question that the individual has to satisfy themselves over for such a private prosecution to have such legitimacy, that being ”do you think that there is evidence of the MP John Banks having committed an offense against the Act in His dealings with the Dotcom donations and Has John Banks publicly answered such allegations to satisfy you that an offense has not been committed???,

          As I said in a previous comment,should a private prosecution of Banks over this issue be deemed necessary if the Police refuse to prosecute then I will happily donate 100 dollars of my small resources to such…
18. bad12 18

    29 April 2012 at 1:05 pm

    The actual charge I forget, the offending entailed Banks’s use of a cell phone on an AirNZ flight, Banks when asked to turn off the phone as such use was considered a danger to the aircrafts flight systems ignored the request and continued to talk on the phone,

    Banks received a paltry 600 dollar fine for His offending,and, a sizzling slagging from a number of us in the courts public gallery where Banks was forced to wait befor He was called to answer the charge…
19. millsy 19

    29 April 2012 at 1:15 pm

    It would be awesome if Banks does go — the country is better off without him.

    Though as I said before, I wouldnt start breaking out the bubbly till he is packing his bags.
    • bad12 19.1

      29 April 2012 at 1:43 pm

      Slippery the Prime Minister has been quoted as saying that He has received assurances from Banks that He,(Banks), has complied with all the requirements of the Electoral Laws,

      As such He (Slippery) has expressed His confidence in Banks and much as we might dislike it, it is the Westminster tradition that the Prime Minister must except such an assurance of no wrong doing from a Minister of His Government,

      The downside to all of the above of course is that should Banks be charged and convicted Slippery must sack him as a Minister, which of course becomes a moot point as Banks upon conviction of a crime that has as a penalty 2 years jail or more must resign from the Parliament,

      The longer Slippery keeps Banks in the Government the more tarred with any unsavory revelations about Banks’s dealings with regards donations that Government becomes,

      But then the obvious is that with such a paper thin majority Slippery has to keep Banks onside as to sack Him now would in all probability have Banks tossing His toys an bringing down the present Government,

      So,while we all take pleasure in dragging Banks through this latest cess-pool that Banks has provided us with the Prime Minister by association is also forced to wallow in the sewage created by His Minister,

      Slippery having created a Government where Law is for sale having turned the office of Prime Minister into nothing more than the shack seen on any New Zealand used car lot is hardly likely to be losing any sleep over Banks’s current predicament He has enough to keep Him up at night in the National Party,s continual internal knifing of each other along with the now outright public mirth being expressed by the Minister of Guessing Bill English at the financial mess He has deliberately created in the Governments accounts….
    • burt 19.2

      29 April 2012 at 2:18 pm

      It would be awesome if Banks does go — the country is better off without him.

      Agree. He has to have rocks in his head if he thinks he can rort the funding laws and not get convicted…. Dooooh.
20. tsmithfield 20

    29 April 2012 at 1:26 pm

    The general consensus here is that Banks is guilty.

    So, the next question is, what will the police do about it?

    If history is any guide, they will sit on it for over a year, and then decide it was some sort of minor infraction and do nothing about it.
    • burt 20.1

      29 April 2012 at 2:24 pm

      That’s my concern as well. The whole fricken process is a sham.

      It’s like the bumbling ninnies version of Yes Minister.

      Oh dear Minister, you have stolen some money… just pay it back and move on. Oh look Minister this debt… Oh, what’s that – you haven’t paid it back… OK just keep going. Excuse me Minister, look you did it again… oh how silly of you. There you go, we validated it all for you – now carry on…
21. Augustus 21

    29 April 2012 at 1:48 pm

    Banks requesting the $ 50,000 to be broken up may originate in the memory of Dotcom. I have no idea where the man has lived over the last 10 years, but in Germany, a political party must immediately declare donations of 50,000 Euro or more to their parliamentary speaker. That has been so since 2002.
    That may have been what Dotcom had in mind.

    I’d love to see the back of Banks, but maybe there are sour grapes involved here.
    • Kotahi Tane Huna 21.1

      29 April 2012 at 2:17 pm

      Read the full story – Dotcom has witnesses.
    • bad12 21.2

      29 April 2012 at 2:17 pm

      The ‘evidence’, as such the Campbell Live show on TV3 on Friday night would tend to suggest that you are totally mislead about the nature of such donations being split into 25 thousand dollar tranches,

      The ‘evidence’ so far would tend to suggest that this was at Banks’s request made in front of at least 2 other people,so in turn you appear to be attempting to mislead us all with your suggestion that the means of the donations were at Dotcom’s instigation,

      Your analysis of sour-grapes tho has some basis in reality, Dotcom made the donations to Banks’s failed bid for the Auckland Mayoralty, subsequently Banks has secured the Epsom seat in the Parliament and Dotcom has been set upon by the FBI and the NZ police at which point it is glaringly obvious Banks has cut off all contact with His former friend and benefactor Dotcom,

      Who would have thunk it, by telling Campbell Live the truth about the details of the Donations He,(Dotcom),gave to Banks as a Mayoral candidate He, (Dotcom) may have been able to clear his stomach cavity of the sour-grapes caused by His former friend Banks ignorance of Him in His hour of need…
      • Augustus 21.2.1

        29 April 2012 at 5:45 pm

        No misleading intended and I’m not suggesting Dotcom instigated the split. If he has witnesses backing him up, your last paragraph sums it up.
        What I was getting at is that Dotcom is no Mother Theresa and gives at least me the impression of an egomaniac who would love to get his own back. And as I said, in this case I hope he does.
22. North 22

    29 April 2012 at 1:56 pm

    Private prosecution if the police don’t act.
    • bad12 22.1

      29 April 2012 at 2:25 pm

      Now there is the best ‘idea’ I have heard all day, I have a spare hundred to donate to any such prosecution should funding be necessary….
      • McFlock 22.1.1

        29 April 2012 at 2:48 pm

        maybe Dotcom still has a helping of sour grapes? 🙂
      • Colonial Viper 22.1.2

        29 April 2012 at 9:19 pm

        Me too, b12.
23. Poission 23

    29 April 2012 at 2:18 pm

    Has there been any scenario assumptions say in the outcome that Banks has to resign from parliament?

    eg If Nat retains Epsom,would they lose a list MP? and would the balance of power change?
24. deuto 24

    29 April 2012 at 2:25 pm

    Not directly related to the donations issue, but certainly related to the mention of cronyism in the post, I/S at No Right Turn has now received papers under the OIA relating to the Charter Schools working group and the appointment of Issacs – by Banks

    http://www.norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2012/04/catherine-isaacs-crony-appointment.html

    Again it would appear to be a case of “handling the truth” carelessly on Banks’ part in relation to the Issacs appointment.

    Great timing for the release of these papers to I/S.
25. captain hook 25

    29 April 2012 at 4:50 pm

    I supposed he used the money to take his party mates out to a strip club.
26. freedom 26

    29 April 2012 at 5:21 pm

    reposted from above because i would like to understand this scenario

    “2. If someone who is currently in parliament on the list wins the seat (say Goldsmith), then they would become the MP for Epsom and the next person off the party list would enter parliament to take their vacant seat.”

    sorry for my ignorance but i don’t understand how that can happen.
    If you are already a sitting MP, how can you stand for an electoral seat, that for whatever reason, becomes vacant in the same term ?
    • Pascal's bookie 26.1

      29 April 2012 at 5:34 pm

      Let’s say you are a list mp who was also a candidate in an electorate seat. You lost the electorate race, but got into parliament on the list.

      if there is a by-election in the seat, ut’s pretty reasonable to think yu might want to have another crack at it.

      If you win the by-election, your party would lose you as a list mp, and you would be replaced by the next person on the list.
      • freedom 26.1.1

        29 April 2012 at 6:59 pm

        in my silly little world full of naiveté and common sense, if you got in on the list, then you are already an MP and that is that. It should be the next person on the list who stands for the electorate seat, or another person selected to run for that seat.
        Am i the only one who thinks a shell game is no way to run a Parliament?
        • felix 26.1.1.1

          29 April 2012 at 7:03 pm

          I get what you mean. But what if that seat is your home, your community? If you know the place and the people well and you really are the party’s best choice to represent that electorate?
          • freedom 26.1.1.1.1

            29 April 2012 at 7:50 pm

            it only highlights how dubious and dodgy the Party List selection mechanisms are. it also raises the spectre that if our electorates are so devoid of choice then we have far bigger problems.
            • felix 26.1.1.1.1.1

              29 April 2012 at 8:00 pm

              I didn’t say “only choice”, I said “best choice”
27. Tiger Mountain 27

    29 April 2012 at 5:31 pm

    Banksie may squiggle out of this one on a technicality, but like ‘Rodders’ (UK gal pal trip) before him, he is effectively gone. Funny how things can unravel–dotcom and tea parties etc. Will someone finally spill now about other rumoured Banksie misadventures?
    • tc 27.1

      29 April 2012 at 6:54 pm

      It was only a matter of time for Blinky, there’s ‘that’ story that may resurface which would look real good for the wowser, anti gambling family man with a kid still at school.

      Then there’s Hulich, his previous adventures in parliament and performance as akl mayor where him and Boag plundered the coffers rewarding her agency and mates with lucrative consulting contracts.

      A dim shrill yes man without the IQ to pull off a decent swindle, how dissappointed Slippery shonkey must be.

      I’d love to know how much this bloke has made from taxpayers/ratepayers over just the last 10 years to sustain his multimillionaire lifestyle.
    • North 27.2

      29 April 2012 at 7:09 pm

      Hilarious how Hide is stirring the pot about it………”serious, must be be investigated etc etc, stand him down…….”

      That such unclean hands should be seen trembling as they clutch their pearls in high dudgeon is notable but utterly irrelevant to the legal issue Sir Botox Banks faces.

      Equally, whether Dotcom has blown the gaffe in revenge for his donee not wanting to know him once he Dotcom was in the slammer is utterly irrelevant to the legal issue.

      The hard evidence of breach of the law does not just slip away because it fell into the public domain as a result of the cronyism of the fabulously wealthy turning to custard. So get it right, arrogant neo-lib apologists.

      Your Daddy is presently in a big vat of malodorous shit.
28. mac1 28

    29 April 2012 at 6:43 pm

    I liked what David Parker said about Banks in the TV news tonight. ” You can’t say that I’ve got nothing to hide and then refuse to answer questions.”

    The sort of sound bite that reeeesonates…………
    • felix 28.1

      29 April 2012 at 6:54 pm

      ☑
    • tc 28.2

      29 April 2012 at 6:58 pm

      Parker finds his voice finally, where the F has he been whilst Blinglish admits guessing budget values this bloke is an epic fail as labours finance spokesperson….next please. Someone who understands the 10sec soundbite rather than a lecture that sends folk to sleep.
    • freedom 28.3

      29 April 2012 at 7:01 pm

      ☑☑
29. Foreign Waka 29

    29 April 2012 at 7:46 pm

    With all the news about “donations”, selling of farms, assets etc. and equally the hands off approach of a style of government that is reminiscent of the 1920’s one wonders whether there is any reasonable honest person anywhere near the parliament. Press included. A country where everything and everybody can be bought, pressured for returns of favors and the money men have the last say is called….. let me think, hmmm….
    • Carol 29.1

      29 April 2012 at 7:52 pm

      Boardwalk Empire.
30. Sukie Damson 30

    29 April 2012 at 7:55 pm

    John dot banks dot cheques dot con
    • North 30.1

      29 April 2012 at 10:48 pm

      You should patent that one Sukie – john.banks.cheques.con – beautiful ! Optional not to read the dots.

      Hey, in a way this 50 grand number looks cheap and vulgar. 50 grand to either of these Two Ronnies is chicken shit.

      Oh Goodness. Methinks God Is Slapping Someone
31. Tazirev 31

    29 April 2012 at 8:26 pm

    John Banks may be the end of an error
32. Hami Shearlie 32

    29 April 2012 at 11:31 pm

    Love to see a body language expert take a look at Banksie on Q&A today. The nervous chimp-like giggle and continuing to talk over everyone sure makes him look guilty! It’s all like a Suzanne Paul commercial – “But wait, there’s more”!
    • Tigger 32.1

      30 April 2012 at 4:32 pm

      Funnily enough I was thinking about that myself, Hami. The subtler stuff was interesting as heck. Watch his hands in the interview, I suspect that’s where the wriggliness over lying was transferred. But would love an expert to give us an opinion.
33. rosy 33

    30 April 2012 at 2:19 am

    Stuff might not think the Banks’ donation from Kim Dotcom is news, but it made the British press-
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/29/kim-dotcom-donation-claims-rock-new-zealand
    • burt 33.1

      30 April 2012 at 12:43 pm

      Stuff are probably scared to make a story out of it because history says nothign ever happens to poor confused MPs who can’t follow the rules they make for themselves.

      Lets hope he gets the sack eh…. I’m not holding my breath but you never know – he’s not a Labour MP so he might actually make it into court before the end of the next term of national government.
34. jaymam 34

    30 April 2012 at 1:44 pm

    It’s looking very bad for Banks when even Farrar throws him under a bus:

    DPF: “If the allegations are correct and that Banks both solicited the donation, and was made aware of when it had been made, and then thanked the donor for it – well I find it hard to see how you can claim that “the candidate concerned does not know who made the donation”, which is the test in the Local Electoral Act.”

    The Stuff poll shows that 70% think Banks should stand down now.
35. Roy 35

    30 April 2012 at 4:18 pm

    If Shonkey thinks Banksie is an honest man, that doesn’t say much for Shonkey’s judgment, does it?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS