Political Suicide
Any possibility John Banks had of becoming Auckland Mayor again, has I suspect died with his idiotic comment on his talkback show that the Robert Hewitt survivial story is a hoax.
You just don’t make claims like that without some evidence or experience of your own. I am all for being sceptical or even asking questions (not that in this case I have any scepticism at all) but you don’t just assert something may be a hoax without some proof of inconsistency.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Uncategorized
February 12th, 2006 at 9:10 am
That is Johnny is’t it. Shoot from the lip. And to make baseless remarks that hurt is dumb politics. But it will get his radio ratings up. I do the same thing on these blogs to get a reaction, but I try to direct my remarks to the Labour Party, they really deserve it.
February 12th, 2006 at 9:11 am
In all honesty, it doesn’t strike me as political suicide in comparison to most of the things Banks gets up to. I think most Aucklanders will just filter it out as “More Banks idiocy”, which is something we’ve become remarkably familiar with over years gone by.
February 12th, 2006 at 9:31 am
Why is it when Banksy says what he thinks its political suicide but when Don Brash says what he thinks it means hes ‘not a politician’.
Based on previous form Banks will just deny he ever questioned the hewitt survival story, just as he did years ago, when ‘rates werent going up more than inflation’ or the famous ‘ greasy dago’ statement about an Americas Cup team , for Banks bare faced lies will work rather than saying sorry!
February 12th, 2006 at 9:47 am
Yeah, the Rose Noelle was a hoax too. So much crap comes out that man’s mouth, I swear he must eat his food by sitting on it.
February 12th, 2006 at 9:55 am
The nature of talkback is often provocative.
Don’t have a collective sense of humour failure.
February 12th, 2006 at 10:10 am
Well, I’m a strong Banksie supporter but I think John didn’t need to go there. If he is serious about running again for Mayor, the focus must be on the direction of Auckland City, which does deserve serious scrutiny. There’s 20 months before the next round of council elections, and plenty that will and won’t happen in Auckland City that will need to be examined, challenged and promoted.
Commentary on side issues like this is irrelevant, and regardless, I think that most Kiwis out there like their stories of heroism like Robert Hewitt’s survival story.
And Maurice – general rates increases (perhaps could be described as overall council spending) didn’t go up more than inflation under the Banks led council, although individual rates increases would have in some areas depending on how the UAGC affected your particular property. The current council have pushed up rates for everyone, as much as 27% for some people, making it harder for those like the elderly to budget for their rates bill increases. The property valuation could potentially hit people harder as well thanks to the current council basing more of the rates bill on property values.
February 12th, 2006 at 10:36 am
Graham, there’s a big difference between being provocative and being a blithering idiot. Only a fool, and John Banks, would fail to make the distinction.
February 12th, 2006 at 11:17 am
I think the fuss over Banks’ comments is largely due to the the fact that Robert is the brother of “our cuddly,plucky Norm”.This may be a cynical comment,but I don’t think so.
February 12th, 2006 at 11:20 am
Given the comments by the expert quoted in the linked article it was probably a fair challenge to make, a little tongue in cheek and definitely provocative.
I agree however in that many people might not take it this way. As a result it was a comment potentially injurious hovever almost certainly not designed to be part of a mayoral campaign.
February 12th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
And would we see these excuses made for Banks if he’d something negative about Islam?
February 12th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
There’d be nobody making “excuses” for Banks if he said something negative about Islam, he’d be being lauded as a hero for exercising his free speech all over the right-wing blogosphere.
The fact that he’s still actually just an irritating, loudmouthed blowhard who is wrong more often than not would likely get forgotten in the subsequent affray.
February 12th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
I can see why Aaron sides with Banks, no matter what inainities come out of his mouth, see Banks raises big bucks for local body campaigns in Auckland, and dishes out some to favoured candidates . Maybe a bit of honesty Aaron in saying if you have taken money from banks or his campaign would suffice.
And Aaron you are wrong about the rates increase, it was the ‘overall’ figure that was supposed to stay at the rate of inflation or less. The Herald made a big thing :
Editorial: Broken promise on rates rise rankles
When the successful slate of candidates for the Auckland City Council last year promised rates would be fixed for the next three years, they…
13 March 2002
82% Councillor’s asked for answers on rate rise
Auckland Citizens & Ratepayers Now president John Collinge has called a meeting to get the group’s councillors to explain a planned rate rise…
13 March 2002
80% Rates promises broken, says ex-councillor
Auckland Citizens & Ratepayers Now are breaking a key election promise with a new plan to increase Auckland City household rates by about 5…
19 March 2002
and bare faced lies from Banks and his Citrats ( thats Arrons team by the way)was breathtaking.
The voters too decided that a unknown had more integrity, the idea that he could be mayor again is too silly for words and if Banks doesnt follow you advice to stop putting his foot in his mouth, Id like to see the puppetmaster instead of the puppet running for mayor
February 12th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
Maurice, What nonsense – I have never sought or received or needed a single cent from Banks in any election campaign.
And Maurice – you are wrong. Overall rates WERE kept to inflation or less for the 2001-2004 term by C&R Now.
What you are referring to was the fact that C&R Now promised a freeze on rates if we were the majority. We weren’t a majority though after the Oct 01 election. We were nine out of 20, and needed two extra votes (in the end we got three) from two independent councillors plus the Mayor, and thus had to moderate our policy to the Mayor’s position which was “overall rates rises at or under inflation”, which was delivered.
And any rates rises in the previous council were tuppence compared to the massive 9.7% general rates rise inflicted last year by Hubbard and co, which again, was as high as 27% for some properties thanks to Hubbard and Hucker doing away with the Uniform Annual charges in a pique of socialist/left-wing ideology.
February 12th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Nine out of 20 had promised a ‘freeze’ on rate rises, so a few independents plus Mayor Banks made you break your promise. So the voters knew this and the Mayor and independents were voted out and the C&R&N went on to have a majority( and re- electing Aaron too)
Tell me which part I got wrong, since it didnt turn out this way.
February 12th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
Which part did you get wrong? About most of it Maurice, throughout the length and breadth of this thread. I have yet to get any acknowledgement of
a) your apologising in suggesting I might be supportive of Banks because of a financial interest
b) your being wrong in what was proposed by C&R Now in 2001 and what was adopted when we were required to moderate our position when we didn’t get a majority.
c) your being wrong in that we did keep overall rates increases at or below inflation over the term of council.
It seems you actually know very little about Auckland City politics, Maurice. Maybe concentrate on something smaller like the Waihi Beach Community Board until you can get your facts right.
February 12th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Every now and then Banks has to remind us why Hubbard won the election. Banks is an idiot. Always has been, always will be.
February 12th, 2006 at 6:41 pm
Well, if it was a hoax, Norm Hewitt deserves an Oscar. Then, you have the payment to the Navy and the Police to keep quiet.
February 12th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
Ouch!
Claws are out today and I thought I was the only one who was having a feisty week.
What’s that I hear falling from the cow? ( Bovine excrement, for all those like me having a slow week ). What more can I say about the intelligence of John Banks.
February 14th, 2006 at 8:48 am
Well, apart from the fact that Mr Banks seems only to open his mouth to change feet! I have known Rob Hewitt since 1986. I joined the Navy the same day he did. I have also spoken to people who joined with us and who have seen him since he was returned to us. Without going in to detail, there is absolutely no doubt that his survival is nothing short of miraculous, and there is precisely nil possibility of this being a hoax. And as for doing this to step out from brother Norms shadow, I’ve never heard such crap in all my life. Rob is his own man, and in all the times I’ve known him, he has always spoken of his brother with pride, and with admiration, but never jealousy. Norm is, was and will always be Rob’s little brother. There’s a lot of aroha there!
February 15th, 2006 at 8:34 am
From what I’ve read Bank’s entire arguement is that when Hewitt was in the navy he would have had to have been able to swim 400m, therefore he would have been able to get to shore, therefore this was a hoax.
Has John ever heard of the aging process? We get older and can’t do all the things we used to (I guess when you’re such an amazing physical specimen like Banksie things like age don’t affect you).
Some might argue that Hewitt has not been in the navy for years and would most probably not have not kept up his level of fitness to the level required of a navy diver, but Super-Banksie sees through that.
He knows that Hewitt must have pulled off this hoax, costing thousands of dollars and putting his family through hell so that he could… hmmm, why did he do this again John?
February 15th, 2006 at 11:45 am
John Banks should remember that not everyone can walk on water like he can.