Richard Worth
March 31st, 2009 at 10:37 am by David FarrarBefore I turn to the substance, let us all laugh at this claim from Phil Goff:
“They (directorships) should have been resigned immediately. He would have been briefed as soon as he became minister,” Mr Goff told Radio New Zealand.
“I think that if you breach the cabinet manual in terms of conflict of interest, you’re gone.
“That was certainly the way (former prime minister) Helen Clark ran (things) and I would, too.”
Two words – Winston Peters.
Winston trampled all over the Cabinet Manual. He didn’t declare multiple gifts. He had wealthy donors pay personal expenses on his behalf, and then advocated policy changes that would benefit them. He never declared any of these interests.
And what did Phil Goff and Helen Clark do? They defended Peters. They even voted against the Privileges Committee report (something not even Jim Anderton could bring himself to do).
So Goff’s claim that Labour would have sacked Worth, should be seen for the bullshit it is.
Worth is a brand new Ministers. Key in his own words has bollocked him and given him a final warning. That by itself is a million miles more than what Labour did in the past.
I am glad to see Key take a very tough line here. I am a bit of a purist and think a Minister is a fulltime job. Business interests should be put to one side during your time as a Minister.
March 31st, 2009 at 10:44 am
Hat tip: goodgod
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 10:48 am
Oh dear. You’re using Winston Peters to say that Worth is fine? If you use this tactic, then anything goes.
Let us remember that in the early days, Helen Clark sacked a lot of ministers for mistakes of the same magnitude as this. If Key wants to be better than the last lot, he needs to start clearly…
[DPF: No do not misrepresent me. I am using Winston to point out Goff is lying. Incidentially Clark sacked no Ministers for a mistake of this relatively minor magnitude. Key has given a bollocking, a public dressing down and a final warning]
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 10:54 am
With respect, Winston is irrelevant. Labour’s indulgence of him does not justify National’s indulgence of someone else’s misdemeanors.
It seems to me that Worth has behaved wrongly. But it also seems to me that this is pretty minor stuff. John Key has given him a “bollocking” and that seems to me to be a proportionate response. Goff’s sacking call is typical Opposition exaggeration.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 10:55 am
And what did Phil Goff and Helen Clark do?
Yes, how strange that Goff didn’t sack the Foreign Minister by fiat of his awesome powers as, uh . . . Trade Minister.
[DPF: I am pointing out Goff lied. He claimed Clark had sacked people for this - Winston proves she did not. He claims he would have sacked Worth. Yet he voted against the Privileges Committee Report, hence saying he thinks it is okay to have the racing industry pay private legal bills on behalf of the Minister of Racing]
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 10:59 am
georgedarroch makes a very valid point. It’s not abourt comparison with Labour it’s about what is right and wrong.
However Goff is a muppet for telling such porkies about how Labour would have dealt with this. If Goff had said ‘It’s OK to ignore because it’s not in the public interest to do anything other than give the man a pay rise and a promotion’ then he would be keeping true to Labour’s approach to scandals.
Key could always do the Labour Three D approach. Deny, Delay, Denigrate. As a note to Key, he could set up an inquiry which takes 9 months and has such limited tems that it exonerates Worth…..
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 11:08 am
Goff continues to make a fool of himself.
His criticism of Worth’s action is not withot merit, but he needs to be reminded of the complete disregard of Cabinet rules shown by his former leader Helen Clark and involving the venal Winston Peters.
Not everybody has the short memory Goff would like to.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 11:09 am
Speaking of trampling over the cabinet manual:
Clauses 2.56 and 2.57 state:
“Conflicts of interest may arise between Ministers’ personal interests and their public duty because of the influence and power that Ministers exercise, and the information to which they have access, both in the individual performance of their portfolio responsibilities and as members of the Executive … Ministers are responsible for ensuring that no conflict exists or appears to exist between their personal interests and their public duty. Ministers must conduct themselves at all times in the knowledge that their role is a public one; appearances and propriety can be as important as an actual conflict of interest.”
Pretty clear.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 11:09 am
Worth is a dick – good on Key for barrelling him.
A better comparison would be Shane Jones.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 11:10 am
I agree the standard is not about being better than Labour. That is a miserably low standard. I am pointing out Goff lied with his claims.
One can reasonably debate about whether or not a mistake like this should lead to a sacking after just four months in office, or whether a final warning and public dressing down was appropriate. What pleases me is that Key has not tried to defend the behaviour in any way – he has said it is unacceptable.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 11:12 am
Goff? The story is about Worth.
Somebody’s being slippery here, for what it’s worth. Let’s ask Eric Roy who it is. (He’ll say ‘Goff’ – see opening comment)
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 11:17 am
Goff? The story is about Worth.
You’re an idiot. Can’t you see? The story is about Winston Peters.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 11:20 am
The press in the UK are still having a field day regarding the misadventures of various MP’s expense claim forms. Richard Worth is a trooper and his misadventures seem small by comparison.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 11:31 am
Worthworthworffgorffgoffwoffwiffwinoffwinstoffwinston!
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 11:34 am
For what’s worth I think greenfly is sharing the same bong as phool.
[DPF: You're on 90 demerits. You really don't want any more]
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 11:37 am
greenfly
Are you in Welly ? If so do you want to share a bong and discuss the complete shambles you call a Green party ?
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 11:40 am
Why bring up that fool Winston? Worth is a stain upon John Key’s good character and needs to be gotten rid of now!
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 11:54 am
There was no conflict of interest with Peters. !!
Where is the investigation that found this to be so.
And DPF you are wrong here…” then advocated policy changes that would benefit them”
The Velas were thoroughbred breeders, the policy changes you talk about were increases in horse racing prize pools. Unless the races are fixed , its fairly arms length and no ‘benefit’ for them. And for breeders the wining is more important
[DPF: Wow we have a sole Winston defender. As you so point out, Clark refused to investigate Winston at all. She even boasted that she had better things to do than read the SFO report that revealed Winston had private donors pay the $40K he owed to Bob Clarkson - that he never declared as a gift]
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 12:02 pm
jacob
Have your forgotten about the tax cut for the racing industry ? In the 2006 budget – at a time when the Muppets in Labour were telling us that tax cuts were only something that National wanted for their big business backers…. Well I guess both sides had big business backers but the Labour muppets wanted us to think it was only National eh.
Give it up jacob, you don’t appear to be smart enough to be successful at this distraction stuff.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Worth has been a part-time MP for some time. Got his doctorate while being paid by the tax payer (no need for a student loan). Of course, his feelings of loyalty to the NP may have taken a battering when Rodney Hide was allowed to broadside him in Epsom. And now this. I would consider him to be one mistake from being backbenched.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 12:05 pm
jacob
Let me spell it out – secret donations from racing industry big business – tax cuts for the racing industry.
Take a bow jacob, you have continued to defend the indefensible long after anybody though it would be possible to keep adding whitewash to the corrupt Labour-led govt that trampled good governance and integrity into the dust in the pursuit of power.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 12:13 pm
One possible difference between Worth and Peters is that Worth isn’t the leader of a needed coalition partner, making him (in Goff’s eyes) easier to strip of the portfolio than Peters. Not that that’s any commentary on the relative rights and wrongs of course!
That photo in the Herald on-line article isn’t Richard Worth is it? If it is he’s aged a lot, gained a lot of weight and lost a lot of hair since the photo he always used to attach to his “Newsworthy” e mail newsletters.
Is Richard Worth guilty of a little – uh-oh – Helen Clark Style airbrushing?
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Richard Worth should be fired forthwith. For the following reasons-
1) He’s a politically useless socialist Trojan horse.
2) He’s been too long in parliament and is a complacent waste of space.
3) Key needed to make the point that there was, (at least on a corruption level), some real difference between the Klark government and his government. He could have made this point so well by firing Worth. Instead, he has given ammunition to the left.
Poor advice. Poor strategy. Poor governance. Weak leadership.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 12:23 pm
BTW, yes, its laughable that Goff should complain after Klark’s unwavering defence of Peters and her own involvement with Owen Glenn’s ambitions to be NZ’s unofficial Moroccan consul.
This was a scam of monumental proportions, and given its relatively small impact upon NZ voters, yet another stark example of media fraud and corruption.
Klark’s media friends rightly crucified Winston, but let her off the hook completely.
Just like the whole thing was pre-arranged.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 12:27 pm
” Key has not tried to defend the behaviour in any way – he has said it is unacceptable.”
Unacceptable..??
Well then..
Worth should be fired.
End of story.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 12:30 pm
I agree with Redbaiter 100%. Key had a chance here to lift the bar from the unbelievable low position Labour left it in when they were turfed from office because the public were so sick of their self serving antics.
Key has failed to take the only appropriate action here and in doing so has misssed the opportunity to set a course back toward open and accountable government.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 12:41 pm
..and y’know what’s even worse Burt me old China? Key can’t fire Worth now without it looking like he’s only done it because of Labour Party criticism.
Jeez the Nats are so damn dumb sometimes.
So out of touch with their support base. So strategically clueless.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 12:45 pm
DPF said: Key in his own words has bollocked him and given him a final warning . That by itself is a million miles more than what Labour did in the past.
We are underwhelmed.
Key’s interpretation of ‘unacceptable’ seems to be acceptable Odd.
Hark! From yonder National office, the sound of moist bus-ticket, slappity-slap.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Go away Greenblowfly.
The stench of your hypocrisy is even worse than your constant childish whining.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 12:57 pm
greenfly
I gave you +ve karma for that. I needed to share that since I normally get about 5 words into your comments and give up by clicking the -ve karma button. It is refreshing to see some slither of recognition of principles in your comments, normally you are defending the indefensible. I have one request – please apply the same standards to all parties and MP’s as you expect the National-led govt to maintain.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 5:20 pm
BREAKING NEWS
Opposition spokesperson [name] has called for [Government MP] to resign over [scandal].
…
I mean, really, it gets a bit dull. Sometimes the scandals are a big deal — Taito Phillip Field and Winston Peters spring to mind. Sometimes they’re not. But you can always count on the opposition to call for heads to roll. Regardless of who happens to be in government at the time…
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 6:13 pm
The Prime Minister has dealt with the matter but I doubt any further breaches of standards will be allowed from Mr Worth. No doubt he was told that. I assume he was reminded that he has one job but then Worth has tended to treat his parliamentary responsibilities as part time to other interests.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Whats ‘unacceptable’ for Key is that Harry Worth got caught out.
How dare this upstart Key slap this brahim with a wet bus ticket.
His children have probably been in the NP longer than Key. being a cog in the wheel that has broken the world financial system doesnt amount to much compared to harry, who did a PhD in his sleep , after he retired from his life of high achievement as one of the exalted who really run this country.
And doesnt Key know Harry is a (drinking) buddy of HSH Prince Albert of Monaco.
The indignity of it all, what has the NP come too, when politics and business arent allowed to go together. Its all the fault of those vile socialists
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 6:20 pm
For what it’s worth I think jacob van hartog cigars are rather bad for the lungs
Thanx for the bit of slack DPF 
90 not out.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 6:20 pm
reddy:
> “Unacceptable..??
> Well then..
> Worth should be fired. ”
Ummm … weren’t you the guy who started frothing at the mouth when the concept of “acceptable/unacceptable behaviour” was raised in the context of Paul Henry’s “Mogate moment”? So I’m not sure you are entitled to raise it here. Unless, of course, YOU are allowed to set down standards for others to live by, but NO-ONE else may.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 6:31 pm
burt – only 5 words into my
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 6:52 pm
The best analysis of this Labour hypocrisy over Richard Worth was by Larry Williams on ZB, Monday night about 5pm.
Vote:It was some of Williams’s best work. Hilarious
March 31st, 2009 at 7:15 pm
hmmm
loath as i am to say this, marian hobbs and phylida (sp) bunkle were both stood down in Clarks first term for the appearance of impropiety – in their cases admittedly fraudulently claiming accommodation allowances while living in Wellington.
Did worth pass a private trip off as an official government mission, and then lobby on behalf of a personal commercial interest?
he must be close to being booted out – at the very least for blind stupidity.
On the other hand, the anteroom could get pretty crowded as the second tier nats demonstrate that they are all a bit limited in the upstairs department – perhaps at least someone could hand nick smith a plastic bag to do the decent thing with.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 7:19 pm
From memory, how long did it take Helen Clark to actually admit Taito Phillip Field had even done anything wrong, never mind sack him!
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 7:20 pm
“Ummm … weren’t you the guy who started frothing at the mouth when the concept of “acceptable/unacceptable behaviour” was raised in the context of Paul Henry’s “Mogate moment”? ”
Gawd almighty. See. This is a perfect example of what I mean about you guys clogging this forum with stupid irrational insane shit. It was you who said Henry’s actions were “unacceptable”. Not me. In so far as I deign to use such an expression, I say they’re perfectly acceptable. So you’ve got nothing there apart from unintelligible deranged shit.
And it was Key who said Worth’s actions were “unacceptable”.
So,
1) You were wrong about Henry and,
2) Key used the word unacceptable, not me.
I’m merely remarking that if Key believed that Worth’s actions were unacceptable, why the hell didn’t he do what needed to be done? Drive a wooden stake through the heart of Labour by sacking Worth, (whose name should be suffixed with ‘less’).
Go away and stop wasting my time with your confused infantile drivel you lamer.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Gosh reddy,
rather hit a nerve, did I? You see, it was you who claimed that attaching labels like “acceptable” or “unacceptable” to peoples behaviour inexoriably leads to Stalin’s gulags, etc, etc. Now you are all het up and geeing JK on to sack Worth for his unacceptable behaviour. So at best you are an idiot who can’t remember what he writes from one day to the next. At worst you are a complete hypocrite who applies standards as and when they suit your personal agenda. In either case, you aren’t worth much really, are you?
But keep it up. ‘Cause you are quite funny.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 7:28 pm
More irrational drivel. You are saying words that Henry spoke are sufficient to send him to the gulags.
Key is addressing behaviour.
Words.
Behaviour.
Get the diff?? Moron.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 7:36 pm
reddy.
No. I don’t get the diff. From the NZ Herald story on this issue … “Dr Worth visited India and spoke in his ministerial capacity while promoting a private company in which he had an interest.”
So his “behaviour” was “speaking” in a way inappropriate to his Ministerial role. Just like Henry’s “behaviour” was “speaking” in a way inappropriate to his presenting role.
Care to keep going with this? ‘Cause you’re losing so far.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 7:50 pm
I think the punishment fits the crime, after all, it’s only done to illustrate that no shit will be tolerated and there are few things more painful than public humiliation especially to someone with a pompous disposition.
It’s not really a sackable offence in terms of the spectrum of crimes and available punishments.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 8:05 pm
DeadSlater – completely neutral opinion – AG is slaying you. You seem to lack debating skills. Have you someone there with you that can help you out? A nurse? Fact is though, I think you are right about Worth and Key.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 8:30 pm
greenfly
How can you claim to be neutral in relation to Redbaiter when a) you call him deadslater and b) he’s normally making a mockery of you ?
Come on now, you do AG a disservice by stepping in to offer your opinion.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 8:33 pm
“completely neutral opinion”
Hahah.. thanks for the laff. Only you could describe yourself, a demented brain washed narrow minded zealot, as providing “neutral” opinion.
Here’s a clue you simpleton bore.
Normally the referee/ judge is a third party deemed to be capable of objective views. For you to assume this role shows just how infantile and ignorant your general perceptions about life are.
This unbelievable degree of ignorance while you presume to preach to all and sundry as to how they live their lives. You’re another damn time wasting fool who should find somewhere else to spray their saliva.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 8:37 pm
“Cause you’re losing so far.”
See my above message to that other lamer the blowfly. Same applies to you, and that the idiocy of you trying to assume the role of umpire only demonstrates to an even greater degree how utterly utterly unbelievably dumb you commies really are.
As if it hasn’t been proved enough by your laughable attempt to compare Henry’s alleged offence with Worths. Go away you sad desperate halfwit.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 8:38 pm
“It’s not really a sackable offence in terms of the spectrum of crimes and available punishments.”
Not the real issue.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 9:40 pm
“Not the real issue.”
It’s the core issue, RB. Why do you think it’s not?
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Read above.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Yeh I’ve been following, still don’t get your comment.
See, in Key’s shoes, if he takes the nuke option on Worth, then how are the rest of the Cabinet going to think and behave. You can’t rule by fear, that is counter-productive. Especially if you’re the leader of a political party. Apart from politicians living on internal support, he can’t alienate all and sundry around him, that’s just nuts. Secondly, if he takes the nuke option, then he’s locked into it forevermore, regardless of the person or the nature of the offence, because it wasn’t that serious. So everyone else over the next 3 years, he has to sack.
Secondly, it wasn’t that serious, if it was deliberate promotion of a private interest using taxpayer money, that’s different, but it was careless, at least that’s the public portrayal of it. Therefore it’s justifiable.
Thirdly, the public will accept this as a punishment, they aren’t baying for blood.
Fourthly, Worth is pompous and will feel this.
Fifth, his colleagues will have heard the message.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 9:53 pm
“Therefore it’s justifiable.”
As in, the punishment is justifiable, not the offence.
[Fuck this missing edit function widgit piece of fucking crap shit wordpress is useless DPF!!!!!!!!!!]
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Sixth Reid. He’s probably gone in some type of cabinet shake-up that could well be possible six-nine months before the next election.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Yeah ginger, I suspect he’s only in there to satisfy some of his internal supporters – I’ve never seen him do anything much. And that’s unfortunately the nature of politics, that you have to do that sometimes.
At least you don’t have to do it all the time, imagine that.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 10:08 pm
This is not a good look for an experienced MP like Richard Worth, and a lawyer too I think.
This was a blatant conflict of interest, and taking place in a foreign country, leads members of the public to wonder if he was really in India for one reason alone. They are then likely to doubt his motivation for being in politics as well. This can then broaden to concerns about the National Party agenda as a whole. Do you see how damaging this kind of thing can be?
Seen in the above light, I know others will join me in saying there was nothing minor about this misdemeanour at all.
I note that Richard Worth was poorly rated in your Metro poll on this WWW site of about one year ago.
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/04/metro_on_auckland_mps.html
At 29 th he was only just above Allan Peachey, Dave Heroera, Ashraf Choudary, Judith Tizard and Taito Philip Field. If I were Richard Worth, I would want to be out of that zone altogether.
It is clear that some reorientation of Richard Worth was required, and John Key was right to act promptly. Whether this has lasting benefit remains to be seen.
I see The Times of India is covering this:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Rest-of-World/New-Zealand-minister-in-trouble-over-India-trip/articleshow/4335913.cms
Our international reputation is on the line as well.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Indeed.
Though Richard Worth does seem to be one useless twat and his answers in Question Time were pathetic that he’ll probably do some silly thing and stuff up things again.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 10:28 pm
“[Fuck this missing edit function widgit piece of fucking crap shit wordpress is useless DPF!!!!!!!!!!]”
Jeez, calm down Reidy, it aint that important. Annoying I know but shit keep cool man.
Have you looked around at the meal the left are making of this? Why throw them the bone? Worth was expendable. There was much more benefit on a tactical level to sacking him compared to keeping him on and wearing what the left will keep harping on for month after month.
Dumping him was necessary to draw a clear line between the Klark government and the new government. That this may have made some Nats fearful then too bad. Maybe a good thing. No harm in sending the message that Key wants a spotlessly clean operation.
Worth might still have to go, and Key will then have more egg on his face. This should have been quick, and decisive, and Key would have justly earned the reward of increased public support.
Now he is tarnished. Unfairly maybe, but nothing is fair in politics.
Al that aside, the main issue is that he has missed a great opportunity to distance his government from the overpowering corruption of the last government.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Richard Worth’s activities are all storm in a tea cup stuff.
At least it gives John Key something to do while the really important decisions are being made elsewhere in the world by people of influence.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Yeah you may be right RB, especially in your last sentence. However he has drawn a line in the sand and prepared the ground for the next step, next time.
I just think his internal politics probably means a lot to him at this time, as he must be trying to build his inner team into a close functioning unit and the wider team – the Nats – into a united force. Exercising too much benevolence or too much ruthlessness – either side – is a bad thing in terms of that objective, at this juncture.
BTW, I always keep calm when blogging, I just find lots of swearing and explanation marks gets more attention. It’s like those special effect guys…
!!!!
But without the sound effects!!!!
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 10:51 pm
With the US there OCED they’re sure to fuck themselves up.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 10:52 pm
I had occasion to write to Worth on behalf of one of his constituents over a justice matter when he was associate spokesman a couple of years ago. I got a letter back simple referring the matter to the then Labour Government Justice Minister.
Vote:Whilst I’m sure he’s good in some respects I think MP’s like that shouldn’t be there
March 31st, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Goff conveniently forgets that Clark declared the Cabinet Manual was “only a guide, not a rule-book”.
Vote:March 31st, 2009 at 11:39 pm
I know I’m a bit late off the boat here, but are you lot seriously comparing Richard Worth and Paul Henry?
Seriously?
Worth = elected public official, accountable to the people
Henry = …. elected public official accountable to the people? Err, no.
Am I the only one capable of understanding this difference?
Vote:April 1st, 2009 at 12:30 am
The incredibly lame loser AG was attempting to criticize me for my use of the word “unacceptable”. He was referencing it to a discussion that occurred the other day wherein I said that their attempts to silence Henry on the grounds that his language was unacceptable were reminiscent of the tactics used by the Stalinists against those they wished to destroy.
Completely off topic. Nothing at all to do with the real issue.
Just another tiny minded fool with nothing to offer. No intellect, no argument, no understanding, no real education, nothing but sick doctrine and a crippled world view. These people are just so small in so many ways, and they always do such things- argue over some trifle to distract from the point they cannot defend, in this case Goff’s rank stinking hypocrisy.
Vote:April 1st, 2009 at 3:20 am
in a strop, in a
Vote:tizzy, in a sulk, in a
gadda da vida
April 1st, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Redbaiter possibly highlights the perceived status of Richard Worth when he describes him as “politically useless” and “complacent”. In other words, this is a cabinet minister that John Key could risk offending – but for a lowly ranked minister like Worth, the option he took was always the most likely – i.e. he resigned from the Aviation company board.
The real test of John Key will if he needs to “bollock” someone with more political potency like Bill English or Rodney Hide.
Even tackling stroppy and accident-prone backbenchers (like Tau Henare or Allan Peachey) might be more difficult than Richard Worth.
Vote:April 1st, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Personally, as an avid anti-Helen campaigner and believer in the ability of John Key to make the changes we need, this just gives me the shits.
Richard Worth looks, sounds and smells like the worst of ‘myths’ of tory excess. The sooner he’s gone in a cabinet ‘resufflle’ the better as far as I’m concerned.
Vote: