Clearing up Span's views on clearing the Field

My previous post on Taito Phillip Field has lead to some confusion about my views on the MP and his dodginess (or lack thereof).

It's understandable, as I haven't stated my thoughts about him since September last year. Also my recent post focused on why it is in Labour's interest (although possibly not Field's) to have a full inquiry, so I didn't castigate the Minister for Hopeful Thai Immigrants for his faults. I got caught up in The Game, rather than actually posting what I think of the man himself and his dealings. Thanks to the commenters on my earlier post for prompting me to write more.

DPF and Idiot/Savant have got a number of posts up on the details of the Ingram Inquiry. I suggest those who want to devour the nitty gritty of this case head right over there and wallow about in it all. I'd also like to point readers to the latest from Tze Ming in her Tilegate series, over at Yellow Peril.

As for my thoughts? Let me be clear: I think Field should go.

My reasons for this are not exclusively to do with what has been exposed recently. As I said in September 2005, I think he is a conservative backwater in the caucus, and any edging out of those forces for "morality" is a Good Thing.

But on the accusations of abusing his role as a Minister and an MP to take advantage of constituents (and would-be constituents), I guess the lukewarm response from me is because I'm simply not surprised.

I'm not surprised at the possibility of a Labour MP violating the rights of workers, having seen some (not all) future Labour MPs amongst the union movement put the interest of the party (or their own ambitions) first.

I'm not surprised that Field seems to have acted at times as if he was a lord in a fiefdom, having met many electorate MPs of various political stripes.

I'm not surprised that he may have genuinely thought that his actions, so obviously suspect to our clear eyes, were ok and were helping people other than himself.

Crystal?