Is there an irony here?

John Key yesterday spoke of how he had faith in his Manukau East MP Kanwaljit Bakshi and he "accepted his candidate’s word". Mr Bakshi is accussed of having made a fake job offer to an Indian woman who was trying to get residency in New Zealand.

John Key was very critical of Helen Clark when she took Winston Peters word with the whole Owen Glen donation fiasco.

On the 29th August on TVNZ's Breakfast, here is some of the things John Key said of Helen Clark around the Winston Peters situation

On being asked what he would have done..."I'd have stood him down, when she couldn't reconcile the two positions she had no option." At the time Mr. Key took Mr. Bakshi's word, he hadn't even spoken to him...one could ask the question how has John Key reconciled the two positions of these accusations.

When asked what Helen Clark should have done, Mr. Key said, "She had a duty of responsibility to get to the bottom of it." However John Key has done nothing to get to the bottom of these accusations

John Key said that the Prime Minister, taking Winston Peter's word over Owen Glen was "…a compromise of standards to keep her government alive". Couldn't someone argue that this may been seen as a compromise to keep his candidates chances, and in doing so, his election alive?

Just wondering if there is an irony here?

See the Breakfast interview by clicking here