John Banks had trouble declaring his connection to SkyCity. It looks like Mike Hosking did too. What is it with SkyCity and supposedly reputable or intelligent people just forgetting what the right thing to do is? It's like once a casino becomes involved, people decide the usual ethical requirements no longer apply to them. It's insidious.
And TVNZ have responded by banning Hosking from SkyCity related journalism. Now he's in the thrall of the gambling "industry", he's conflicted on a whole lot of stuff, not just SkyCity. Given that it could become a topical subject, that limits his capability and casts doubt on his integrity, and that's the start of the slippery slope to ineffectualness. If I were TVNZ I'd be considering whether Hosking was a liability.
Franz Ferdinand - Tonight: Franz Ferdinand, 2009
Showing posts with label casino. Show all posts
Showing posts with label casino. Show all posts
Tuesday, 12 June 2012
Wednesday, 16 May 2012
Pouring Petrol On A Burning Man
I'm becoming becoming sick and tired of blogging about Regular John, John Banks and Kim Dotcom. But with parliament not sitting this week, it's still news.
There's been nothing to change my opinion, yet, and I've come to the conclusion that I should call for a pox on all their houses. For the following reasons:
*We have most certainly not heard the last of Kim Dotcom and John Banks. Over the next few days, weeks and maybe months, more and more will leak out. Mr Banks is the burning man, as mickeysavage pointed out (great photo mickey), Mr Dotcom is pouring the petrol. The fire will consume Mr Banks and unless it is extinguished, it will also consume this government. Before its time, but not before time.
Paul Kelly - Hidden Things, 1992
There's been nothing to change my opinion, yet, and I've come to the conclusion that I should call for a pox on all their houses. For the following reasons:
- John Banks is perhaps the most obvious of the three. His claims of lapses of memory, his evasiveness and obfuscation, his blatant attempts to subvert the spirit of the law and his lack of self-awareness about how immoral his actions are have been picked up by even the dullest of commenters. John Banks is a joke.
- Regular John has failed in his duty to properly investigate allegations of improper behaviour by one of his Ministers. And not just any old improper behaviour, if Banks had been outed for using the services of prostitutes or taking illegal drugs I'd not have cared too much, beyond scoffing at his hypocrisy. But his indiscretions have struck at the heart of the foundations of our society, and by failing to take a cautious approach, Mr Key has failed every single one of us.
- Kim Dotcom's behaviour is quite outrageous. He is, at one level, attempting to bring down a democratically elected government. Now I won't pretend I like our present government; I hold a strong dislike for them. And I won't pretend that I believe that there are never good grounds to try to bring down a democratically elected government, there are a range of good grounds. Kim Dotcom is operating at the edge of one of those good grounds. The principle of supporting democracy requires me to examine whether an attack on a democratically elected government is also an attack on democracy. In this case, and I look forward to seeing how it develops*, I believe Kim Dotcom's actions could weaken our democracy. I do not hold to the truism that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
*We have most certainly not heard the last of Kim Dotcom and John Banks. Over the next few days, weeks and maybe months, more and more will leak out. Mr Banks is the burning man, as mickeysavage pointed out (great photo mickey), Mr Dotcom is pouring the petrol. The fire will consume Mr Banks and unless it is extinguished, it will also consume this government. Before its time, but not before time.
Paul Kelly - Hidden Things, 1992
Monday, 7 May 2012
Regular John
Gotta ask, and it's a bit tongue in cheek: Having been forced to abandon his ordinary guy image, through his support for the twin vices of gambling (the industrialised sort at SkyCity) and prostitution, is Mr Key taking on a "regular John" (in the American sense) persona?
Queens of the Stone Age - Queens of the Stone Age, 1998
Queens of the Stone Age - Queens of the Stone Age, 1998
Monday, 30 April 2012
More Than This
Goodness me, a weekend is a long time in politics. It was only Thursday last week I was asking about John Banks's suitability to be a cabinet minister. Over the weekend he has provided more than sufficient evidence to prove he should not be a Member of Parliament, much less a Minister for the Crown.
I'd like to say I approach the issue from an unbiased perspective. But I don't. John Banks comes with a long track record of poor judgement and policy based on whim.
As Minister of Police, back in the early 1990s, he succeeded only in fostering a culture of thuggery and misogyny that had brought us thugs and criminals like Ross Meurant, and Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum.
As mayor of Auckland he did two notable things. One was to direct public resources to modifying a carpark to suit his car. The other was to unite the right behind him in the 2010 election. The latter was a good thing.
Over the weekend the notorious Kim Dotcom entered the fray. I'm not sure what to think about Mr Dotcom. The way in which the government has cowered before the US authorities in detaining Mr Dotcom is another shameful episode visited upon us by National, so in that respect I have to give him some benefit of the doubt. But his taste in housing, and making donations to John Banks...
The meltdown on Q+A was extraordinary. Mr Banks's failure to provide straight answers to simple questions is unacceptable.
Then tonight there is audio of a conversation with Mr Banks where he denies (a) going to the casino with Kim Dotcom and (b) having a sexual relationship with Mr Dotcom. I find it very difficult to believe the host genuinely was speaking to John Banks. My best reason for this is that Banks is not famed for his liberal views on sexuality, and the leap from "relationship = sexual" to "it would be immoral to have a homosexual affair with a man who is married to a woman" happened too quickly for me to avoid suspecting it is a hoax. If it turns out the conversation was with Banks, it is one of the most extra-ordinary pieces of radio in recent history.
John Key is backing Mr Banks and will not suspend his warrants because Mr Key will only judge him on the legality of his actions, not the morality of them. Because as PM, he is not in the position to judge morality. Right? Honestly, I shook my head in amazement and wonder at how far we have fallen, to have a PM who thinks this is only a legal matter.
Truth is, this is about one of the things I cherish. Democracy. Writing rules around democratic process is difficult, because morality and ethics are difficult to convert to processes. When viewing alleged transgressions, the people we elect to assess those alleged transgressions must take the conservative view and back the people who democracy is meant to protect - the citizens. In returning to the "legal wrong" line that he ran with Mr English and his housing allowance, Mr Key has clearly backed his mates ahead of New Zealand. As the most important person in the highest court in the land, anti-democratic behaviour like that is a good reason for resignation.
So, has John Banks done anything wrong in not declaring his donations from Kim Dotcom? The whole theory that he received more than two donations for the amount he colluded with Kim Dotcom for, so he can't be sure which were from Mr Dotcom is bunk. And the latest stories that Mr Banks did not call Mr Dotcom to thank him for his donations are (a) confused and (b) irrelevant and (c) only serve to make Mr Banks look ungrateful. The correct thing to do was first check that Mr Dotcom did make the donations that were discussed - a phonecall would have done it, and (b) declared the donations. When in doubt, err on the side of caution.
There is is, then. Mr Banks is not suitable to hold a ministerial warrant. He should resign his seat in parliament. And Mr Key, in supporting Mr Banks's immoral behaviour, has crapped on democracy and shown himself to be unsuitable to be Prime Minister. He too should resign as an MP.
The longer Mr Banks try to hold on to his warrants and electorate seat, the more this foetid mess will corrode the whole government. In some ways I'm quite keen to see it go on. How are the Maori Party and Peter Dunne feeling about supporting this circus, these days?
What will question time bring tomorrow? I'm expecting something quite unhinged.
Roxy Music - Avalon, 1982
I'd like to say I approach the issue from an unbiased perspective. But I don't. John Banks comes with a long track record of poor judgement and policy based on whim.
As Minister of Police, back in the early 1990s, he succeeded only in fostering a culture of thuggery and misogyny that had brought us thugs and criminals like Ross Meurant, and Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum.
As mayor of Auckland he did two notable things. One was to direct public resources to modifying a carpark to suit his car. The other was to unite the right behind him in the 2010 election. The latter was a good thing.
Over the weekend the notorious Kim Dotcom entered the fray. I'm not sure what to think about Mr Dotcom. The way in which the government has cowered before the US authorities in detaining Mr Dotcom is another shameful episode visited upon us by National, so in that respect I have to give him some benefit of the doubt. But his taste in housing, and making donations to John Banks...
The meltdown on Q+A was extraordinary. Mr Banks's failure to provide straight answers to simple questions is unacceptable.
Then tonight there is audio of a conversation with Mr Banks where he denies (a) going to the casino with Kim Dotcom and (b) having a sexual relationship with Mr Dotcom. I find it very difficult to believe the host genuinely was speaking to John Banks. My best reason for this is that Banks is not famed for his liberal views on sexuality, and the leap from "relationship = sexual" to "it would be immoral to have a homosexual affair with a man who is married to a woman" happened too quickly for me to avoid suspecting it is a hoax. If it turns out the conversation was with Banks, it is one of the most extra-ordinary pieces of radio in recent history.
John Key is backing Mr Banks and will not suspend his warrants because Mr Key will only judge him on the legality of his actions, not the morality of them. Because as PM, he is not in the position to judge morality. Right? Honestly, I shook my head in amazement and wonder at how far we have fallen, to have a PM who thinks this is only a legal matter.
Truth is, this is about one of the things I cherish. Democracy. Writing rules around democratic process is difficult, because morality and ethics are difficult to convert to processes. When viewing alleged transgressions, the people we elect to assess those alleged transgressions must take the conservative view and back the people who democracy is meant to protect - the citizens. In returning to the "legal wrong" line that he ran with Mr English and his housing allowance, Mr Key has clearly backed his mates ahead of New Zealand. As the most important person in the highest court in the land, anti-democratic behaviour like that is a good reason for resignation.
So, has John Banks done anything wrong in not declaring his donations from Kim Dotcom? The whole theory that he received more than two donations for the amount he colluded with Kim Dotcom for, so he can't be sure which were from Mr Dotcom is bunk. And the latest stories that Mr Banks did not call Mr Dotcom to thank him for his donations are (a) confused and (b) irrelevant and (c) only serve to make Mr Banks look ungrateful. The correct thing to do was first check that Mr Dotcom did make the donations that were discussed - a phonecall would have done it, and (b) declared the donations. When in doubt, err on the side of caution.
There is is, then. Mr Banks is not suitable to hold a ministerial warrant. He should resign his seat in parliament. And Mr Key, in supporting Mr Banks's immoral behaviour, has crapped on democracy and shown himself to be unsuitable to be Prime Minister. He too should resign as an MP.
The longer Mr Banks try to hold on to his warrants and electorate seat, the more this foetid mess will corrode the whole government. In some ways I'm quite keen to see it go on. How are the Maori Party and Peter Dunne feeling about supporting this circus, these days?
What will question time bring tomorrow? I'm expecting something quite unhinged.
Roxy Music - Avalon, 1982
Thursday, 26 April 2012
Honesty's Not Enough
Seems like John Banks can, at important times, be a stranger to the truth. His public comments on most subjects he cares to air are characterised by being flawed and incoherent, but there are times that straight answers must, under the law, be answered with straight answers.
Signing financial statements, for example.
Or returns on election donations.
How many strikes was it that ACT, the party that Mr Banks is the sole MP for, advocate? Three.
For the leader of a party, honesty's not enough should be a minimum standard. For ACT's leader, it seems like a lofty, aspirational goal.
Chris Knox - Seizure, 1988
Signing financial statements, for example.
Or returns on election donations.
How many strikes was it that ACT, the party that Mr Banks is the sole MP for, advocate? Three.
For the leader of a party, honesty's not enough should be a minimum standard. For ACT's leader, it seems like a lofty, aspirational goal.
Chris Knox - Seizure, 1988
Wednesday, 18 April 2012
Upside Down
This convention centre in Auckland...
Yeah, the whole thing with the PM offering to change the law to suit big business stinks to high heaven of corruption and cronyism. But it's been thoroughly covered across the NZ media and blogosphere, and to be fair it is not out of character at all for our PM. The real shame is that we will be obliged to refer to him as "the Right Honourable" for the rest of his life, when he is nothing of the sort.
I'm keen to know why we (as a society) are proceeding with it in the first place. Not the casino bit, the conference centre.
If there is an economic case for it, sure, let's build it. Hypothetically - It could be that there is a strong case for it, good profits, short payback, in which case private business would be all over it. Maybe the case is not so strong, but at a local (or regional if such a thing still existed in Auckland) government level some wider benefits to the community could be shown, in which case government could fund it.
But the business case is not even that strong. Private business and local government won't touch it, because there is no viable business case. You might think there is, if you read the Herald, where Mr Key is quoted as saying:
Cross-subsidise? What about user pays? There's no benefit to the public, so if it can't be self funding there's no good grounds to build it.
I strongly recommend listening to the rest of the Radio NZ interview. The Greens, who are normally derided as economically illiterate fringe dwellers, pull the whole shonky deal apart in bot economic and probity terms, and give National, who are, incidentally, the notional party of business, a serious lesson in things they should already know backwards and forwards.
So, back to the cross-subsidy. The Prime Minister apparently believes that because a convention centre for educated and privilege professionals can not make any money, the cost difference is best made up by wringing more money out of the poor, disadvantaged and addicted.
Or maybe I missed something. I'd like to know how Mr Key reconciles the two statements above, for starters.
The Jesus and Mary Chain - 7", 1985
Yeah, the whole thing with the PM offering to change the law to suit big business stinks to high heaven of corruption and cronyism. But it's been thoroughly covered across the NZ media and blogosphere, and to be fair it is not out of character at all for our PM. The real shame is that we will be obliged to refer to him as "the Right Honourable" for the rest of his life, when he is nothing of the sort.
I'm keen to know why we (as a society) are proceeding with it in the first place. Not the casino bit, the conference centre.
If there is an economic case for it, sure, let's build it. Hypothetically - It could be that there is a strong case for it, good profits, short payback, in which case private business would be all over it. Maybe the case is not so strong, but at a local (or regional if such a thing still existed in Auckland) government level some wider benefits to the community could be shown, in which case government could fund it.
But the business case is not even that strong. Private business and local government won't touch it, because there is no viable business case. You might think there is, if you read the Herald, where Mr Key is quoted as saying:
Meanwhile, should the deal reach fruition, any changes to the Gambling Act that would be required would not be conscience vote for National MPs.That was because Mr Key regarded the issue as primarily an economic one."It's largely the issue of a piece of infrastructure for tourism and it's an important part of building that tourism model."typical meaningless crap, and contrasts with what was said by Mr Key on Radio NZ:
"...at the moment a convention centre, of its own free standing, will not support the return on capital, so if we want to have the convention centre with no government investment, or no local government, they will have to cross-subsidise.""...will not support the return on capital..." - that'll be why no one with any business sense will go near this convention-centre idea.
Cross-subsidise? What about user pays? There's no benefit to the public, so if it can't be self funding there's no good grounds to build it.
I strongly recommend listening to the rest of the Radio NZ interview. The Greens, who are normally derided as economically illiterate fringe dwellers, pull the whole shonky deal apart in bot economic and probity terms, and give National, who are, incidentally, the notional party of business, a serious lesson in things they should already know backwards and forwards.
So, back to the cross-subsidy. The Prime Minister apparently believes that because a convention centre for educated and privilege professionals can not make any money, the cost difference is best made up by wringing more money out of the poor, disadvantaged and addicted.
Or maybe I missed something. I'd like to know how Mr Key reconciles the two statements above, for starters.
The Jesus and Mary Chain - 7", 1985
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)