It reminds me of BRT stalwart Trevor Farmer funnelling his donations to ACT through family?

Question: How come Key won't stand Banks down because it's "only allegations"? Since when was that the standard?

[For the record, the last few days' threadage on this topic is here].

If Banks knew who the donation came from, he's guilty.
Legally, not just morally.

You'd think so. David MacGregor's tobacco analogy is a good one.

National would go from having 17 list seats to having 17 list seats. "Additional" is one word to use, but it's more applicable to it?

What you said first up ... if Goldsmith wins, he quits as a list MP before being formally declared the elected MP for Epsom, thus bringing in whomsoever is next on National's list.

If ACT wins, nothing changes. But if Parker wins ... ? Then he quits as a?

Mutually exclusive, obviously ;-)

Is there any actual evidence to back up either of those claims?

If that really is the case, then could it be a symptom of 'last place aversion syndrome', as discussed in [[http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2012/04/a-turn-to-mean/|this Kiwipolitico?

Could be, but I am quite suspicious of suggestions that rules are changing just because a herd moves in one direction for longer than expected. Herds can turn fast?

..who know a gutless opposition is not worth voting for or listening to. Simpler theory.

Kim Dotcom says he will produce financial records to back up his allegation that he gave $50,000 to Act leader John Banks' 2010 mayoral campaign after Mr Banks yesterday said the Herald's report of those claims was "mostly BS".

But Key said he asked Banks if he had acted within the law and received an assurance that he had.

"He either complied with the law or he didn't. He said he did – I have absolutely no reason to doubt him," Key?

I knew he'd find that angle irresistable.

Both of them have such outstanding legal minds, after all.

But Key said he asked Banks if he had acted within the law and received an assurance that he had.

Like I say, outstanding.

Urrrh. I never thought I'd visit a website that made Kiwibog look sane.

We appreciate your sacrifice, Russell. Deity knows I wouldn't go in there!

Putting on my "think like John Banks hat" I see that Banks got five "anonymous" donations of 25k, of which only two were from Kim Dotcom. As a paid up member of the sharp practice, smart-alec?

No True Scotsman, methinks? And it?s not the first time, either. Denial is the last refuge of the cornered.

And so with Epsom, if the end result is bye bye ACT that will?

And this seems likely to be the real issue for Key. He can't get?

Presumably they?d split the pot so that no one could say who had had which cup of tea.

Except that they need that one seat otherwise they might not actually be the government. Which would also be a political strategic?

But the Super City debacle where the worst kind of Corporatism and sinking lid economics were proscribed?

Are you telling me National wouldn't have won Epsom? The error was twofold. First of all, in assuming that ACT would coat tail more than one MP?

However, looking at the law, I don't see that one washing. Perhaps Graeme can comment better, but I just don't read that law as written to allow a known donor of?

We'd like to expect so. However, the strategy employed with the last debacle over cupsatea did work in their favour and I suspect it is the same one going into?

The estimable Mr Fisher, of whom I am sure John Banks speaks very highly, is now a Herald, not a HoS, staffer.

Stuff: Widening Banks campaign donations probe.

Graeme's blog post suggests that it's likely that Bank's can successfully argue precisely that.

He may squeeze through that loophole. However, he does not seem to be the kind of person we really want representing the citizens of New Zealand?

There's only a couple of seats in it, which is why Goldsmith was MIA, and National voters swallowed Banks like a dead rat. It wasn't a strategic blunder, it was a vitally?

John Banks can be got rid of the same way Rodney Hide was removed – by an internal coup within Act?

Well pointed out.

That is a very good reason to move to single vote MMP (where the party vote is given to?

(There is precedent for this – the US Democrats and Republicans effectively swapped political sides during the late 19th / early 20th century).

And so it could be possible with a different Labour Govt?

I stand corrected. Also: I'd hate to have Fish on my case the way that Banks does now :-)

Sky City, like many businesses, regularly makes equal donations to all the serious mayoral candidates. So everyone knew already that they were going to give?

if not acted on to change, yes

(There is precedent for this ? the US Democrats and Republicans effectively swapped political sides during the late 19th / early 20th century).
And immediately before, the Republicans split into?

John Banks on casinos, 1997:

?They?re wide boys, they?re flash boys, they?re big boys and they can take it. Because the little people of this?

So you're saying he risked committing a crime to protect his appearance of integrity ...

I suspect you are right, yet another reason to not have him in parliament.

We know better.

You make the false assumption that Key is leading, when he is only fronting this National government. Joyce, Brownlee and McCully would still be there, and Collins and a few others,?

Had a chat with an old colleague the other week, good?

No, he claims he did call to thank him... but for something else!

(unless you mean "no phone recording", in which case, he certainly is).

My guess is that he looked at his phone records for the period around April, found nothing and so thought he was sweet. Now Dotcom says June. heheh, we'll just see...

Phone records are normally only stored by phone companies for around three-six months in an easily retrievable format. I am not sure of the current regulatory environment for keeping them for longer, but even if they are it would?

Then you think far better of him than I?

These guys, (Key, Banks et al) are not used to having anyone question their word, their behaviour, their friendships. They believe their standing in the community exempts them from that. Their arrogance is often what let's their guard down?

And how convenient that Banks now recalls a phone call but it's for the fireworks. (just in case eh?)

Yup, but they weren't to know that in advance. They could have needed 40,000 to switch, which was by no means guaranteed.?

Plus they thought they were all riding high for numbers giving them a vast majority. Until that fateful cuppa... hehehehehe { :)

Yes, really.

By "treading water", I was referring to downward mobility – the kind of situation where weakening middle classes foment a latent inferiority complex and blame those?

Gower says Banks' return noted 45 anonymous donations totalling $638,512.

Len Brown appeared to be saying that SkyCity told him that they were donating to both himself and Banks.

Big call for Len here, then. He's clearly been looking to not rock the boat lately, given the bullying that has come his way from central government. But if he's asked?

Nah, I would wager it's JB who invited Kim and Mona. The party being held at a prominent Property Developers apartment. I'd wager?

Nah, he's proud of being a twit. It's his thing.

LOL, that's a thought. So some good may come of that debacle after all.

Had to retract, on the grounds that not now 100% sure I heard right.

If they were arranged at around the same time, then someone has suggested to Banks in the last day or so that it might be a useful way to defuse the phone call evidence.

Campbell Live showed?

Yeah, I'm confused now. Need a timeline.

Well, I'm sorta right, in that I know lots of people (including family) that do know him . When I had a shop in Parnell, he would get exercise walking the streets around there and?

Oh yes, "can't remember. I've got a helicopter too y'know." { :)

Yes 100%.

Jeffrey Archer, Ian Paisley, most of the US Republican Party, Zamzami Abdelbari. I could go on.

Charming, Mr two barges.

Knowing what Banks is like, it makes absolute sense.

I think that for all the `there's only a few seats in it' that just isn't true --- Labour were never going to lead a government no matter the mathematical possibilities.

Also, speaking of mathematical possibilities, what?

I grew weary of trying to explain that?

From my understanding, it's about how the negotations were conducted (and in 02 as well), not the numbers which I agree were never in their favour.

Also '02? The Greens spent most of that campaign attacking Helen Clark and Labour. It's hardly a surprise there was a degree of caution there.

we must be listening to different people :)

Banks should be sacked for mangling the English language! His repeated description of Dotcom as a "donater" last night on TV3 made me cringe.

Banks must resign over gift scandal

Not just stand down during the inquiry — resign.

I checked my Oxford. Donator is a word. It means a person who receives a donation. And in a separate definition, it means a person who?

Yeah, in America.

I think it's an abbreviation for detonator. Perfectly apt in this case.

And one of them was mine, to my endless shame...

It's up on the Labour Blog . Was linked to in the comments part of his post for the non facebookers like me { :)

Anonymous donations should not be permitted at all but they have been allowed under strict conditions because political parties say few wealthy or corporate donors would contribute if their names had to be made public.

Are they seriously saying that if all donations had to be?

NZH: Banks: I briefed Dotcom

John Banks says he kept political donor Kim Dotcom briefed on the progress of his application to buy 45 hectares of Kiwi land for $45 million.

The statement has been backed by Dotcom – but Mr Banks' "good friend", Land Information Minister Maurice Williamson,?

There is the letter of the law, there is the spirit of the law and there is intent. Like the Prime Minister, I'm no lawyer but it seems to me most ordinary people do not have a?

__Slyest approach was Trevor Mallard's question to Mr Banks about charter schools in his capacity as associate education minister. Rolling several of the Government's problems together in an ingenious ball, Mr Mallard asked whether an application had been made?

Thinking about it: it may mean the account was in Queenstown
not?

It really was. Now if only that skill could be put to better use.

I believe Mr Geddis addressed that recently. Or maybe it was Mr Edgeler? Apparently the wording in the act does not link the candidate and their campaign team as much as the equivalent central electoral legislatation does.

An?

I am surprised his name hasn't come up more often, given his past escapades.

Online predictions market iPredict has ACT leader John Banks and National MP Maurice Williamson both being stood down as ministers by May 15...

Personally, I think the iPredicters are totally wrong about Williamson (had him to go at over 97 cents last night!),?

Sorry. Thought it would be everywhere in a few minutes.

NBR says that:

John Banks denies asking Kim Dotcom to split a $50K donation so it could remain anonymous.

I'm not sure he did though, did he?

That is just how daft the law is – to actually consider that there is viable degree of seperation. It does not serve the public interest.

It contains some of the original interview:

Mary Wilson (Checkpoint): [... In that interview I asked Mr. Simmons if he had asked Mr. Banks if he had received donations from Mr. Dotcom, and he had this to say:]

Chris Simmons (ACT President): ?Not?

It's here though:
http://thestandard.org.nz/resignationwatch-oopsie/.