John Banks on Kim Dotcom: I did not have sexual relations with that man

It was a little over a week ago that I speculated on John Banks’ mental health regarding his genuine belief that he could lead ACT to electability in 2014.  If this week’s Kim Dotcom row is anything to go by, it looks like I was right on the money.

Because we’ve all seen the news, I’ll sum it up briefly.  Allegedly:

Banks took a few helicopter rides – which he now seems to have forgotten – to visit Kim Dotcom and help with his application to buy land through the Overseas Investment Office (OIO); have dinner with Mr and Mrs Dotcom; and enjoy a fireworks show.  Somewhere along the line Dotcom donated $50,000 toward Banks’ mayoral bid, which Banks asked be split into $25,000 cheques so as to be claimed as anonymous donations.  Banks then phoned to thank Dotcom for the donations.  Banks denies any knowledge of asking for the donations to be split, or of the phonecall.

Which brings us, in a nutshell, to where we are now.

Now, you’ll excuse any omissions in this breakdown because I’m not trying to focus on this issue – despite it being a serious one.  Rather, I’m more concerned with John Banks’ mental wellbeing and his ability to care for himself. 

The general reaction of someone at the centre of a breaking scandal is to avoid media scrum and any situation where there are tough questions to answer.  So it was rather baffling to see Banks – resplendent in his much-loved velvet jacket – appearing with Labour MP David Parker to debate the Budget on TVNZ’s ‘Q+A’ programme on Sunday.

Within five minutes the interviewer predictably turned to Banks and started questioning him over the Dotcom scandal.  Banks appeared surprised, and stated that he was only there to discuss the Budget.  While David Parker looked positively gleeful, Banks insisted he had “nothing to hide” – and then refused to answer any questions, opting instead to either stare at his shoes or look wistfully off into the distance while muttering about Cabbage Boats.

Whose idea was it to wheel a baffled and confused John Banks into an interview, with an Opposition MP, on TVNZ’s finest political programming when he was on the cusp of a scandal involving a fat German facing extradition to the US?

Surely everyone could see that this was a bad idea from the outset, so who let Banks out of the house?  His demeanour was one of bewilderment – as though he’d been discovered wandering outside TVNZ in his bathrobe, flung into make-up, and then hauled in front of the camera … when all he was looking for was his Sunday morning crepes.

If that weren’t bad enough, he then committed himself to an interview on Radio Live Monday.  During this, he mistook a question about his business relationship with Kim Dotcom for an insinuation that he was involved in a homoerotic relationship with a fat German.  As such, he flipped his lid and exclaimed, “But he’s married!”

He has now, at a press gathering in the halls of Parliament, answered “No” when asked if he knew of the Dotcom donation.  But this was not “No” with the roar of innocence but, rather, with the misty distraction of a cataract patient pretending to see friends and family where only a fridge and hat-stand are present.

John Banks’ behaviour has gone from sycophantic and doddering to downright bizarre, and we can only imagine where it will go next.  Are we going to see him marching into Parliament, half shaven, in his wife’s pink terrycloth robe demanding a cure for pancakes? Or will the men in white coats toss him into a home for the bewildered where he can spend his days making things out of papier-mâché and wearing mittens all year round?

Only one man can make that call. John Key

Key faces a tough choice. Does he keep this Banks around in all his insane glory or does he stand him down from his ministerial post and feed him to the public? When Winston Peters was caught in a similar embroilment over his forgetfulness regarding a donation from Owen Glenn, Key lead a very vocal charge to have Helen Clarke step him down stating unequivocally, 
"Helen Clark must stand Mr Peters down as a minister. That is what I would do if I were prime minister."

Now that Banks is charged with a similar ‘crime’ Key needs to remain consistent.  If he doesn’t his credibility takes a hit and his carefully prepared 2008 claim that he would run his government by “the highest ethical standards” look hypocritical and disingenuous. It’s a tough time to be Prime Minister, particularly when your one seat majority is held by a bumbling Mr Magoo impersonator. 

It isn't dishonest if no one notices!

Well, it finally happened: I’ve been banned from posting on Martyn ’Bomber‘ Bradbury’s Facebook wall.

What action was it that caused me to be banned?  Was it swearing and rabid abuse?  Did I make some kind of racial slur?  A tasteless comment regarding someone’s mother?

No, I pointed out that he had made some disingenuous and intellectually dishonest comments.

Sure, I might have made a pain of myself.  But if you’re going to make demonstrably false claims, hypocritical statements and dishonest commentary in a public space – and expose yourself to public scrutiny by describing yourself as a media personality – you can expect others to counter you, investigate your claims and call foul when you say something less than honest … particularly if you have a history of calling foul on people yourself.

For the record: when engaging those with whom I have a difference of opinion I never swear, I try to avoid being condescending, I provide sources for my claims and consider opposite opinions carefully.  Above all, however, I am prepared to be wrong.

In this particular case it was claimed that Roy Morgan polling data is flawed; that it manipulates – rather than represents – public opinion in order to promote John Key’s popularity.  Whenever one of these polls shows Key or National at 50 percent or higher, Bradbury calls foul – claiming that themethodology is flawed, the mainstream media wants you to believe Key isunbeatable, and on it goes.  However, that same poll – using the same methodology that Bomber had claimed was “bullshit” – recently gave the Greens 17 percent.  In that instance Bomber was a little more forgiving and accepting of a result that played nicely into his ideological beliefs.

It stands to reason that if you accept that a methodology is poor and flawed, then you must also accept that the poll based on that methodology must also be poor and flawed – as must any outcome of that poll.  My personal view is that no poll can accurately capture the mood of the populace and, in this case, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle – ie National and Key are still popular, but the Green Party is rising to become an electoral force in its own right.

The first time Bomber did this, I pointed out the discrepancy – only to be sworn at, called a few names and generally berated by a few of his acolytes.  This second time, however, I was banned and all my comments were deleted – and not just on the update in question but, rather, over the entire page.  Bomber has made it clear that inconvenient truths shall not be tolerated.  He has recreated his page as an echo chamber where he can always be right and there is, and has, never been any dissent.

It strikes me as counter-productive – not to mention dishonest – to ignore and delete comments that either disagree with you or raise valid points that you may have not considered before.  Equally so to ignore polite dissent, but let others berate the dissenter in your name; or to accuse those who disagree with you of hypocrisy and dishonesty, but then display those very same flaws yourself.

People might say – usually while defending said rude behaviour – that you can write whatever bullshit you want on your own page.  That may be true – but if you proclaim yourself to be a political pundit and media personality, then you can expect people to follow your posts and question your comments when they see something they know to be false. Even more egregiously bullshit was when Bomber claimed the Green Party walked away from the National Party when his linked article said the exact opposite.

So … who do you think you’re kidding, buddy?

Maybe tomorrow I’ll tell you about the other rude and nasty individuals who moderated me today and actually told me, with all sincerity, that “there is no such thing as 'rational' debate” when I tried explaining that rational and logical debate means it is incumbent on the person making a claim to provide the evidence for said claim.

Jesus, I’m stirring up all types of ire today. 

John Banks boards the train to Crazy Town

“ACT leader John Banks has pledged to lead an ''electable''party into the 2014 polls.”

Wait, what?
Really? 

If John Banks actually believes the ACT party, under his leadership, is going to be anything more than a sideshow in the 2014 election then he is pushing the Crazy Train to previously unknown speeds. John Banks is so completely hopeless I wouldn’t even trust him to make me a cup of coffee. The idea that Banks can think he is anything but a simpering animal who is unelectable without sucking up at the National Party teat is delusional at best, downright psychotic at worst.

Watching Banks sifting anxiously along the sidewalk in lieu of John Keys arrival, all red faced and puffy like a schoolgirl awaiting her date, was awkward in such a fashion that you’d think it was Ricky Gervais. The faux camaraderie between the two men, when they eventually got to around to ordering a pot of tea, was embarrassing to the point that even Key looked as though he wished he were somewhere else.

At least Rodney Hide didn’t act like a whimpering sycophant and while Don Brash was so utterly out of touch that when he finished speaking during a debate he seemed to look around as if he didn’t quite understand who had just been talking he at least made some valid, if not controversial, points and stuck by his guns in the face of ridicule.

But I could be wrong and it wouldn’t the first time nor will it be the last. Seriously though, what the hell?