Posts by Rich of Observationz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
We had many (p)Riks at Southampton Uni in the early 1980s. Come third year, most of them cut their hair and interviewed for Andersen Consulting. I suspect they are now CEOs.
-
Oh, I don't think Labour will back a by-election. That would be far to attacky.
-
Well, the offence was enacted (albeit in a haphazard and sloppy fashion) to try and create transparency in local government campaign finance. It was considered by Parliament to be a moderately serious offence, carrying a two year sentence or $10k fine (Common assault carries a one year maximum sentence).
I guess the fact that the offending was based on "wilful ignorance" as opposed to "explicit knowledge" might be a mitigating factor. On the other hand, Banks sought to delay justice for as long as possible and has shown no sign of acceptance of his guilt, let alone contrition.
-
Legal Beagle: Q&A: John Banks' judicial review, in reply to Sacha,
Yes, indeed. Another political move, which would need to be followed by a vote for Labour to cancel the by-election.
I reckon if he won't do this, then Labour should refuse to vote for any by-election cancellation, especially given that Key seems wedded to trying to gift Epsom to ACT (https://twitter.com/patrickgowernz/status/474755131448098817).
Keep corruption in peoples minds.
-
Legal Beagle: Q&A: John Banks' judicial review, in reply to BenWilson,
Not to mention that according to statute (apparently, I base this on Graeme Edgeler's tweets as I have never understood that stuff about writs of election) if Banks has a conviction entered when he comes up for sentence on August 1st, there will then legally have to be a by-election prior to the general election.
The only way to stop this would be a *political* decision by Labour to vote for cancellation in a recalled Parliament.
-
I think Key's got three choices:
- cut ACT loose and actively campaign to win Epsom
Downside would be that there are quite a lot of ACToid zombies left, and hence a good chance they'd waste a percent or so of votes
Also, I guess National are loath to behead the corpse of an ACT party that's served them well over the years in advocating for policies the Nats are loath to put forward, like charter schools and privatising the Army- have a cuppa with Seymour, indicate the usual deal
Two risks here: the voters of Epsom are sufficiently pissed off not to join in, and the rest of electorate are turned off National by the increasing sleaze factor- say absolutely nothing and see what happens
Probably the best option, but one with a good chance of terminating ACT. Will Key risk it? -
This is an
interesting visualisation.I wonder what it would look like for Auckland. Moar roads, I suspect.
(Though if you take "Auckland" as the fully sprawling council area, that would include a lot of green space).
-
Legal Beagle: Q&A: John Banks' judicial review, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Heh. Well, based on Mr Edgeler's tweets, they might be stuck with a by-election. I'm sure someone will run to stop it being unopposed. Worst case, they'd get to draw a week or two's pay if elected.
-
s/will/would
A by-election would not be redundant. The reason being that a by-election is unlikely to replace a criminal* MP by another of the same party. At a general election, that might subside into the general mush.
That would be a firm reason for Labour to refuse to support a deferral of the by-election, thus ensuring that ACT criminality remains a foreground issue.
* As in, "one who has committed a crime"
-
It's defeating justice, really.
Banks isn't, according to those that know, likely to get more than a fine.
The main consequence of his fraud has always been that he'll lose his seat and there will be a by-election, where Seymour would need to try and get elected in place of an MP expelled for criminality. Even an electorate as venal as Epsom may not comply with that, and it would be hard to turn a by-election defeat into a victory at the subsequent election.