- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Saturday, April 28, 2012

Epsom By-Election Alert - John Banks in cash scandal meltdown

Dotcom's secret donation to Banks
Kim Dotcom says he gave John Banks money to help his mayoral campaign. Photos / Sarah Ivey, Jason Dorday Act leader John Banks asked for a $50,000 political donation to be split into two parts so it could be made anonymously, says Kim Dotcom and one other witness.

Dotcom said the request was made on April 15, 2010, when Mr Banks was preparing to campaign for the Auckland mayoralty.

He said there were at times three other people in the room while the donation was discussed - and Mr Banks rang later to thank him for it.

The allegation comes after police were asked to investigate Mr Banks' listing of a $15,000 donation from SkyCity as "anonymous".

Political candidates are required by law to declare donations if they know who made them. Failure to do so is punishable by up to two years' imprisonment and up to a $10,000 fine.

A vacancy is automatically created if any MP is convicted of an offence punishable by two years or more, no matter what punishment they get.

In the case of Mr Banks, a conviction would place at risk his Epsom seat under the Electoral Act and force a by-election. The loss would leave the Government exposed, with its 59 votes in the 121-seat Parliament supplemented only by United Future's one and the Maori Party's three.


Oh this is the gift that just keeps giving doesn't it? Following hard on the heels of such class A ACT Party hypocrites like Rodney Hide and David Garrett, Banks became the new pall bearer for gutter standards earlier this week when his comments against pokie machines from the late 1990's was played against his new position supporting pokie machines now. That jaw dropping hypocrisy was followed up by claims that he hid a $15 000 donation from SkyCity and now this incredible accusation by Kim Dotcom that he was asked to donate secretly in a manner that helped bypass the rules.

John Banks is a train wreck whose time has finally come. How he managed to avoid getting arrested for his role as a director in the Huljich KiwiSaver scheme has always amazed me, but his old boy crony mate network can't save him from the current grubby allegations.

Banks filed on the 9th December and listed $15 000 as anonymous, yet on the 13th December SkyCity admitted the payment. Len Brown was aware of the donation, how on earth could John Banks not have been and these new allegations that he actively attempted to wash cash anonymously means he is dog tucker.

The vultures are already circling and there is blood in the water.

What would a by-election look like? Who from each of the party's would run and how much of an anti-Government vote would this by election produce in the most right wing electorate in the country? Would protesting voters vote for a strong Green candidate? Would Rodney Hide run again? Who does Labour run and what does MANA do? Would NZ First have a punt?

Whatever the result, the by election would produce a body blow to the government, even if they won. It leaves them with 60 votes, but utterly reliant on the centrist Peter Dunne for a majority. Peter Dunne could stop the asset sales, Peter Dunne could stop the SkyCity deal, Peter Dunne could stop a lot of things. National currently play ACT off against Dunne but with no ACT, Dunne suddenly has a vast amount of power.

Whatever way a by-election plays out, the real joy would be seeing the end of this homophobic dinosaur and the ACT Party. Anyone who can say...

"If we continue the bankrupt response of just paying young Polynesian, young Maori men in south Auckland the dole to sit in front of TV, smoke marijuana, watch pornography and plan more drug offending and more burglaries, then we’re going to have them coming through our windows".

...doesn't deserve to be in a liberal progressive democracy, and they sure as hell don't deserve to be the associate Minister of Education. ACT became a political joke a long time ago, watching the accusations of sleazy cover ups and dirty anonymous cash getting laundered as the ACT Party's final footnote should warm the hearts of every leftie.

FACEBOOK TWITTER

7 Comments:

At 28/4/12 1:43 pm, Blogger slydixon said...

Sharks circle for blood in the water. Here's to the buggers getting a decent feed!

 
At 28/4/12 10:58 pm, Blogger DebsisDead said...

Wake up blokes this is NZ. All that has to happen to make this go away is for John Key to say that "he believes Mr Banks behaved honourably with no fraudulent intent."
Despite the fact that such a statement is palpably wrong, a big chunk of NZ will choose to believe it because to do other wise would force them into doubting the very foundations of the facile myth which they've used to lull themselves into apathy.
And as for that essential component of an honest and effective democracy; NZ's press - nudge, nudge. wink, wink - say no more.

The media will positively encourage that incurious reaction by gently stroking the apathetic whilst portraying anyone who disagrees and/or insinuates there may be some basis for doubting 'Banksie', as being a loser troublemaker who, if allowed to continue with such disloyal contentions, runs a risk of discouraging tourism, depressing lamb prices and bringing the Fonterra brand into disrepute internationally.

Yeah if I exaggerate it is only by the merest smidgeon. Watch and you will see this year's Banksgate play out just like all other incidents in John Banks' long & dodgy career which've indicated that the apple may not have fallen far from the tree.

The tree being Banks' father, a career crim who specialised in providing illegal abortions.

Does anyone remember the honey/ royal jelly scam when Banks was mayor?
The details elude me now and the NZ wayback machine is pretty good about 'misplacing' the media reports of Nat/Act politicians' sagas in our law courts.
I found a reference to the case on a site called quackery watch .
Interesting as the whole piece is, I especially enjoyed this reminder of who has been up who and how long the rent has been getting paid:
"Armed with two piles of documents - and accompanied to court by his mayoral press officer Cameron Brewer - Mr Banks said after buying into the company in December 2000 he formed a view within the first week that Ben Cook was a man "out of control".

However, he told the court he had a lot of good times with Mr Cook and they shared a passion for motor cars. The company paid a $39,000 annual lease on Mr Banks' $500,000 V8 Bentley Arnage."


Say no morAH!

 
At 28/4/12 11:20 pm, Blogger Frank said...

A by-election will probably return a National candidate, so the government's majority is preserved.

What would (or SHOULD) change is that without ACT, the Nats have lost their excuse for hard-right policies such as charter schools. If they did persevere with charter schools, it would mean National owning those policies and taking responsibility for tyhem.

That would be an "interesting proposition" (as Dear Leader luvs to say) to put to the public wouldn't it?

 
At 29/4/12 8:56 am, Blogger MPledger said...

There were several letters to the DomPost asking in wonderment how Mr Dotcom got New Zealand residency given his health status. These were from immigrants who have been through pretty stringent health checks themselves.

I don't know why reporters never looked deeper into that. It's such an obvious question but it seems to have drawn such a blank.

 
At 29/4/12 3:18 pm, Blogger CosmicRocketCultivator said...

Of course it's only wrong if you get caught. Then you say you have nothing to fear which is fair enough. Then you add as a J.P. you have given yourself clearance of any wrong doing. How many more levels of assurance do the public need to pacify any thoughts of wrong doing, morally in the very least, from the holier than thou? We as a collective,rational conciousness hold such short term memories of mis-deeds that these humans believe they can do no wrong. Earth weeps her gentle tears for fools and saints.

 
At 30/4/12 4:36 pm, Blogger caleb said...

What happens to the party vote (and therefore total MP numbers in each party) if Banks and ACT go? Is it simply ignored, because this is an electorate-only bi-election rather than an electorate/party general vote election? So, whoever wins the seat just gets an extra seat? I guess now that I think about it that probably is the case.

But if they do still take the party vote into account, it looks like Labour would be next in line for an extra seat...

Effective party vote and proportion of 120 seats (once Conservative, miscellaneous, invalid and now ACT votes are removed):

Labour: 27.48 out of 95.55 = 28.76% or 34.51 seats

National: 47.31 out of 95.55 = 49.51% or 59.4 seats

Mana: 1.08 out of 95.55 = 1.13% or 1.35 seats.

NZ First: 6.59 out of 95.55 = 6.90% or 8.28 seats

Green: 11.06 out of 95.55 = 11.58% or 13.89 seats

(Maori Party and UF significantly lower than party vote so not worth working out).

So if they ignore the party vote when a bi-election happens, that means the dirty Epsom deal basically won National the election. That is, it won them a majority even without the Maori Party, and cost Maori the chance to be king-makers. What would basically have happened is Banks lasts a few months and then makes way for an extra National MP (one more than they ought to have got if Goldsmith had simply won that electorate in November).

 
At 30/4/12 4:36 pm, Blogger caleb said...

What happens to the party vote (and therefore total MP numbers in each party) if Banks and ACT go? Is it simply ignored, because this is an electorate-only bi-election rather than an electorate/party general vote election? So, whoever wins the seat just gets an extra seat? I guess now that I think about it that probably is the case.

But if they do still take the party vote into account, it looks like Labour would be next in line for an extra seat...

Effective party vote and proportion of 120 seats (once Conservative, miscellaneous, invalid and now ACT votes are removed):

Labour: 27.48 out of 95.55 = 28.76% or 34.51 seats

National: 47.31 out of 95.55 = 49.51% or 59.4 seats

Mana: 1.08 out of 95.55 = 1.13% or 1.35 seats.

NZ First: 6.59 out of 95.55 = 6.90% or 8.28 seats

Green: 11.06 out of 95.55 = 11.58% or 13.89 seats

(Maori Party and UF significantly lower than party vote so not worth working out).

So if they ignore the party vote when a bi-election happens, that means the dirty Epsom deal basically won National the election. That is, it won them a majority even without the Maori Party, and cost Maori the chance to be king-makers. What would basically have happened is Banks lasts a few months and then makes way for an extra National MP (one more than they ought to have got if Goldsmith had simply won that electorate in November).

 

Post a Comment

<< Home