David Cunliffe's Labour leadership is in question after the New Zealand Herald published a letter Cunliffe wrote in support of Chinese businessman Donghua Liu in 2003, which conflicts with his assurances in a news conference on Tuesday that he had not personally lobbied in favour of Liu's residency application.
New Zealand Herald political columnist John Armstrong took the unusual step of suggesting Cunliffe may have to resign over the revelation.
Cunliffe faced questions from journalists in Parliament shortly after the publication of the letter on Wednesday afternoon.
He said had no plans to resign as Labour leader and denied he had advocated for Donghua Liu, describing the letter as "process inquiry" about the time it was taking for Mr Liu's application to be processed.
He said he could not recall meeting Liu and neither could his electorate staff. He said the letter may have written after an immigration agent approached his electorate office.
Cunliffe said he had briefly discussed the issue with senior Labour leadership colleagues before the short news conference and remained confident he had the support of his caucus.
Cunliffe denied he had lied at a news conference on Tuesday about advocating or meeting Liu.
"I did not advocate for him. A letter has just come to my attention which is 11 years old, which simply asks how long a processing process would take," he said.
"I still have no recollection of meeting Mr Liu. I do not recall ever having met him," he said.
"To the best of my knowledge, that letter came through my office and an immigration agent on his behalf," he said.
Cunliffe was then asked why he would write a letter inquiring on Liu's behalf when he had not met Liu.
"It appears it checked out on paper and it was a very low level request about how long the processing would take," he said, adding that neither he or his office could remember meeting Liu and there were no records of any meetings.
"If my staff are of the view that the matter is reliable, then a low-level process intervention is quite normal," he said.
"My memory has obviously failed me."
Cunliffe was then asked how voters could trust him when he had been so emphatic on Tuesday in saying he had not advocated for Liu.
"Do you think I would have been emphatic if I had any memory of Mr Liu? I gave an honest answer as I recalled it," Cunliffe said.
He said he was "totally relaxed" about the situation and believed he had done "absolutely nothing wrong."
Cunliffe said he had not approached his caucus as a whole to ask whether they still supported him, but that brief discussions with senior colleagues had told him any suggestions he go "were ridiculous."
Reaction
Prime Minister John Key said the public would struggle to trust Cunliffe after publication of the letter.
"Mr Cunliffe has asked New Zealanders to trust him that he's had no involvement with Donghua Liu, yet this letter suggests the complete opposite and quite clearly he'll need to explain his actions," Key was quoted as saying.
(Updated with comments from a news conference with Cunliffe.)
107 Comments
We can just wonder what Jonkey said to one of his colleagues at Meryll Lynch in April 2003.
Probably something like "How much did we screw the NZ dollar for today?"
Then again he cannot recall what he has said to some of his lackey coalition leaders in 2012 to 2013
Sorry Bernard. This stuff just ain't worth reporting unless it has a financial bent.
So you can personally remember someone you met in 2003. Of course, Bernard can report it. However it is all irrelevant and typical grandstanding by the Herald and poor logic from John Armstrong who should have known better.
I really do not care who did this type of action in 2003. It would be just as irrelevant had it been Jonkey or Maurice Who?
I am in 2014, are you?
"really do not care who did this type of action..." - when it's a Labour party member, when it's someone from National, we all have to listen to you scream.
Look up the definition of hypocrite.
In my opinion you must be a paid Labour party supporter so we can't expect you to say anything else.
As opposed to a vested interest panicking over a possible labour win?
hypocrite? LOL, that is funny coming from you.
So lets get this straight, it appears to be a letter written 11 years ago, one of hundreds if not thousands a MP would receive questioning why a public dept was taking so long to do something? So someone in DC's office asking why it was so slow? and DC doesnt recall?
Not exactly a big deal.
regards
Be accurate. Cunliffe wrote a typical electorate letter ( probably based on a request from a immigration consultant or employee who could speak English) asking for nothing other than to advise the then current timing between the application and the date of the letter and asked for NOTHING
Williamson conversed directly with the Police not once (was I twice?) and used the pressure about the financial importance of the accused.
Somewhat different
Boatman must follow only condensed 140 character short-form twitter feeds
Cunliffe wrote a letter - and we know now that Bill Liu was a persistent pusher who never gave up on his quest
Williamson did a lot more - apart from ringing the police - not in writing
(a) he lobbied the immigration minister - probably not in writing
(b) obtained citizenship for Bill Liu - Cunliffe didnt
(c) he performed the naturalisation ceremony in his electorate office - not in writing
(d) advised Bill Liu to buy the property next to his Pauanui bach
(e) did repairs and maintenance on that property next door
(f) Bill Liu plonked $½ million above the asking price
(g) what do you think that did to the value of Maurice's bach
(h) $½ million - thanks for coming and not a single dollar cash changed hands
http://www.interest.co.nz/news/69723/review-things-you-need-know-you-go…
Henry_Tull
http://www.interest.co.nz/news/69723/review-things-you-need-know-you-go…
Something that is being missed in all this is that Liu, who is toxic to all that come in contact with him including his wife,has NZ citizenship - can this not be revoked now all the dirty laundry is apparent to all? NZ does not need immigrants like this. If we can send home a critically ill youth to die in Fiji we should be able to send Liu back to whatever hole he came from.
I did wonder that when the revelations about the corruption case in China came out. Either 1) We didn't ask the right questions, 2) We made a bad judgment letting a known corrupt person in, or 3) He lied on his application.
If it's 3), surely this a fraudulenty obtaining citizenship and grounds for it to be revoked.
It goes further than that
The immigration department investigated his bona-fides and gave advice that his application be rejected. Liu, who you will recall, does not speak english was able to enage english-speaking lobbyists on his behalf, sufficient to promote his case in the face of an adverse internal decision. He lobbied 3 immigration ministers. Persistent if nothing else. Finally he got to Maurice Williamson who successfully argued on his behalf. Even though he still didn't speak english. How eloquent is that. His lobbying eventually succeeded on the basis he was a wealthy businessman who was willing to throw a lot of money at the NZ economy. The unknowns are who were the interpreters and lobbyists acting on his behalf? The only conclusion must be he was throwing a lot of money at these people to chase his case so persistently. In the end money, somewhere, over-ruled the department. Liu achieved his ambition, but has yet to fulfill one of his promises, 11 years later
That sums up the sad state of affairs associated with the Investor and Investor Plus immigration categories supported by both the two main parties. And NZ ranks the least corrupt nation in the world? Time I think that one of the minor parties puts up a Members Bill that takes away the Ministerial decision-making provisions in our immigration law. It's plain for every NZer to see that we need to reduce the powers of the executive wherever we can in NZ's system of parliamentary democracy if we are to remain a decent, corruption-free society.
.
The system works reasonably fine...so it is not me who is silly. The system captures those in Parliament who are behaving in ways that they shouldn't. And the media is also doing its job in bringing the issues to the publics attention. It's not perfect but nothing is.
If you allow the bureaucrats and public servants full running of the show there are no checks and balances and that is why our current system is more functional than you give it credit for.
If you look at the case of Maurice Williamson I find it quite reasonable that he should be able to write a letter to the police to find out what is going on as that is an MP who is doing his/her job for his constituents. Its the donation of money that is the issue as it is seen as having a financial lobby attached which most people take issue with.
John Banks has been found guilty again the system is working as it should.
Taito Phillip Field was caught up with.
No one should be able to threaten democracy and justice and that is why we have the two tiers working of Politicians and civil service.
Some of the question that you need to review with your concept would be....
What is the percentage of civil servants who appear before the courts for offences related to their work?
And maybe if you can answer that question you will realise that very few ever get caught for anything.....does that mean they are always honest in their dealings?
Or does it mean that they are damn good at not getting caught?
It is reported that theft in retail business is around the $1b mark but could be higher with about half that amount being staff theft. So we have an idea as to what happens in this sector of the economy. Would this kind of dishonesty be similar in our public sectors?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/8662177/Shoplifters-cost-1b-…
In June 2012 a paper was presented to Parliament from the the Controller and Auditor-General Office. In NZ it was reported that out of 1472 respondents (under the fraud/corruption heading) in the public sector that there was a 23% incident rate. There was a 74% response rate. The 23% Incident rate comes from the percentage of respondents who replied that they knew of at least one incident of fraud, corruption or economic crime having been committed in their entity in the survey period. The survey included 2000 people in the public sector.
http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0C…
A 23% incident rate is lower than other countries but it is an unacceptable percentage and also only reflects known incidences and doesn't account for respondents who may have lied or not answered accurately etc to the survey.
Maybe if you concentrated more on the percentage of people who are likely/or who are known to be dishonest in our society rather than suggest that the public service has no dishonesty you would realise that the two tiered approach is more reasonable than what your proposing.
In my opinion Labour is a dinosaur, suffering a slow and undignified decline. There is something to admire in all the other political parties, Nationals embrace of the free market, the Greens sustainability policies, the Internet parties push for more internet, Acts tough stance on crime and the Maori parties fight for their people. There is nothing I respect about Labour, their big government, big union, benefits for everyone policies only appeal to the vested interests who directly benefit from them.
It begs the question, how long until the Greens are the main opposition party?
Yes, I'm surprised the Greens continue to be so far left on social issues. Surely the main concern is the environment. A move towards the centre in soical policy would make them a lot harder to ignore. I think most people on this site realise we have some pretty big issues facing the economy and environment in the next 20 years and the Greens are not affraid to bring up the issues but their overly left leaning stance puts off voters who are concerned about the environment but haven't yet figured out the role growth plays in the equation.
Well I will be voting Greens this year so I don't necessarily think they are " far left ". There is certainly a perception, particularly on this site that the greens are communist in disguise. They tend to take pro views to paid parental leave, getting kids out of poverty (interesting what it says about us if that is considered "far left") legalising abortion, marijuana (the religious nutters don't like this) I presume the Greens are pro family assistance ? (Middle class welfare blah blah) Have a policy to leave students with less debt. When you look at that list "far left" is pretty much giving to today’s youth what baby boomers had given to them.
Pretty much "Far left" in this context is purely perception. Economically a lot of the policies the Greens want to implement seem to be sensible. The only issue I have with the Greens is they push the "smart sustainable growth" bollocks.
Is not the last thought in your comment the very reason why you should not vote for the Greens PeakEverything. I would have thought growing the economy and therefore the number of jobs for our children and grandchildren is the very reason you vote National this election. The Greens don't give a stuff about jobs but just talk about this idea of sustainable growth rubbish. All very fine in theory but it will not create the jobs we need to keep us all in good jobs that give us a reasonable quality of life. It staggers me that so many people vote for the Greens thereby creating the possibilty of a government that will destroy jobs for the future generations.
There are no jobs - there is no growth - on a dead planet.
Sustainable growth is rubbish? If a business or economy has to plunder and deplete its natural environment in order to survive, then it is not a viable business. it is doomed to fail at some stage, because it is depending on finite resources.
Sustainable businesses, will, in their turn, provide enough jobs, if we give them half a chance.
Example: if everybody recycled everything recycleable, then this would create quite a number of jobs. And clean up our environmen and businesses at the same time. Win-win
What's not to like about going green?
You cant grow the fossil based economy again, ever. Unless its short term at the expense of mid (children) and longer term (grand children). There will be no oil in effect by 2050 and maybe severly rationed by 2030 if onlyby price.
You are rong on the Green's and jobs as much else it seems, especially math. The Greens point at green jobs as a growth medium, look at the USA where renewables are being installed creating jobs as an example.
If you defination of quality of life is lots of consumerism crap well this is what we have based on cheap fossil energy which is no more...hence yes your "quality of life" is going bye bye.
It is National which will destroy the future economy, and Labour with their "just" approach to the environment.
What needs to happen is we need fewer ppl, hence there wont be a need for all these jobs that is demanding by ever more growth.
regards
Ha, I think you misunderstand me. I think the sustainable growth theory is rubbish because you can't have sustainable growth, growth is inherently unsustainable.
Your comment shows you don't understand the relationship between growth and environmental destruction. Think of it like this, pretend we are in a spaceship flying through space and a group of people are telling you that we should start mining the spaceship for raw materials so we can increase the wealth of the ship and give everyone jobs. You can only mine the ship you are on for so long before the ships starts to fall apart. Earth is our ship, economic growth is simply using more of the ship up each year and destroying its ability to provide life support. Sure you can make call stuff from the ship but when the ship can't regulate the temperature and you start to overheat or you can't grow food etc all that "wealth" means nothing.
A vote for growth is a vote to keep destroying the ship your grandkids will need to live on.
If you monitor their output press and other stuff (such as facebook) and read their policies they give a distinct impression as left of Labour. Hence why I'd agree on far left.
"Defination of far left" . When we see Labour as low in the polls I'd suggest that is because some of Labour's left have gone to the Green's. maybe the terms should be "middle left"
For context, where would you have placed the Alliance?
I'd also agree that the Green's cannot have 2 masters, its either "green" or "red". For instance the single most effective Green policy IMHO is birth control for population reduction. They wont go near that and in fact I get called a Nazi, rascist and "John Key lover" when I push such Green things, it is just a riot at times.
regards
I agree they are to the left of Labour. then again, I wouldn't call Labour a leftist party, any more.
They're a smidgen left of centre, they're more a centrist party these days, than they are left.
I think the Greens have a lot of great policies, but I think they way the organisation is structured and run, says more to me than any of their policies.
Apart from advocating for the environment, they are also spokespeople for those without a voice: animals
They are the party who stand up and fight the hardest for the differently abled in society.
They are a party of social justice, and they seem to be the only party with a conscience.
The Greens (in their quest for votes) have forgotten what a green party should be all about, the environment. Most voters in NZ are a little bit green regardless of which side if the political spectrum they sit on, we all enjoy the beautiful country we live in and don’t want to see it spoilt. We all directly, or indirectly, benefit economically from our clean green image and its positive effects on our export and tourism industries. Our current green party positions itself left of centre which makes it unpalatable for 50% of the population to vote for them and thus leaving 50% of voters no option of right wing social and economic policies combined with a sustainability agenda. We need a green party that is happy to work with either a National or Labour lead government to ensure the environmental and sustainability issues are always embraced by the ruling majority.
Nah..... the Greens want the following
- We must all live in a vegan utopia ( Beef and Lamb are definitely OUT)
- Accordingly you will be arrested and sent to prison in Antartica if you light up a barbecue
- Dairy farming activities must either cease of be taxed out of existence
- We must all sell our cars and ride the Bus ( these will be electric becasue Diesel is unacceptable)
- Trucks must all be scrapped ( they give off smelly fumes)
- Everyone must hand over all their money to the Green Govt who will drip-feed everyone a montlhy benefit .
- No one needs to ever do any work , as the State will provide everything
- Everyone will get a State House, no more worries about Auckland house prices
- Everything will be provided for free to those under 18 , and you will use your montlhy benefit if you are over 18 to buy food , etc .
- There must be no industrial development whatsoever ( Industrial workers will get the montlhy benefit instead of working )
Sorry Happy123, bu you're incorrect about 'what a green party should be all about'.
From its inception, green Politics have always been about social justice as well as sustainalbe economics
this from Wiki:
"Green politics is a political ideology that aims to create an ecologically sustainable society rooted in environmentalism, social justice, and grassroots democracy.[1]"
"
Supporters of Green politics, called Greens (with a capital 'G'), share many ideas with the ecology, conservation, environmentalism, feminism, and peace movements. In addition to democracy and ecological issues, green politics is concerned with civil liberties, social justice, nonviolence, sometimes variants of localism[2] and tends to support social progressivism. The party's platform is largely considered left in the political spectrum."
Greens have always been left.
Except the environment and social justice at some point clash. so which wins? ie this is especially the case when you look at short term removal of pain (gain) say job losses or the status quo v a longer term loss the environment and a viable / sustainable society. Pollies will always take the least painful way for thmeselves.
The big thing that is becoming clear to me is the Green's are not capable of making hard decisions that favour Green and long term survivability. For instance birth control and immigration, if they truely cared about Green they would be setting policy to reduce the population.
regards
Not really sure that I understand your reasoning why social justice and caring for the environment would clash?
I don't think effective policies exist which would reduce the number of births. Birth control is not something which should be managed by the state.
The only thing a government can do, is invest in education.
Immigration is a policy, like so many others, which needs an overhaul. It's not a subject that lends itself to media worthy snippets that could win you the election. It is a complicated subject and does not have a simple solution.
You are an immigrant yourself, Steven, so why was it ok for you to come here, but not for people arriving after you?
Obviously you dont see or want to see that population is the biggest cause of pressure on the environment.
Education cant do it, educating 7billion going on 9billion to the std of the developed world in order to limit birth control via intelectual choice is simply impossible energy wise let alone ecological wise. So really you show the classic clash of social V green, ie for you a social issue wins over the environment stress when it comes down to it.
Last sentence is argumentum ad hominem.
regards
My last sentence was not invalid as an argument. If you are arguing against immigrants, yet are an immigrant yourself, then I think my question is pertinent to the debate - why is it ok for some to emigrate and not for others? When and where do you draw the line?
With regards to education - I did not see eduaction to being limited as teaching a woman why she should not have children, rather it was an acknowledgement of the fact that when education and investment in the developing world (where the bulk of population growth is happening) is focused on women, giving them (the chance of ) financial independence, then their fertility rate drops quite dramatically.
.
How would you limit population growth, worldwide? Or are you only concerned with NZ, and therefore think that curbing immigration is the way to go?
You know Steven you should read "A Mother's Ordeal" Steven W. Mosher..........it is the story of Chi An.......it is on China's one-child policy.......your interest in population control diguised as a you truly care policy is bollocks.....maybe you're only interest in controlling the populace and the everyday people's lives..........long-term survivability dressed up as an environment issue........keep spinning your Socialist propagand machine it is seen for what it is!!!
There is a saying theory works until it meets practice.
Putting aside the individual heartbreak of not having the right to breed as many times as you want as a short term self centred goal The reality is the planet cannot stand / support 7billion ppl today let alone the 9billion projected and certainly not having 7~9billion living at devloped world standards.
In our case we limited children through informed choice and in fact if we knew know what we know now of the future I dont think we would have had any children at all, their future is looking uglier and more un-pleasant by the day.
There is a saying from somewhere "no parent should bury their own child", I will mutate that into no parent should see their child left in poverty and misery especially when caused by the previosu generations.
"long-term survivability dressed up as an environment issue" it is actually one and the same, we need a friendly environment in order to survive, you however wish not to see that.
regards
Steven you have never put up any scientific evidence that the planet cannot support the population theory that you espouse.
I'm assuming you read "The Population Bomb" by Ehrlich.....and have taken everything he wrote as gospel......maybe you should remember that Ehrlich's book was the cause for the barbarbic atrocities which have occured in China....and other countries....
http://www.pop.org/content/new-evidence-unfpa-support-forced-abortion-g…
You use a fossil fuel theory to explain the existence of hydrocarbons. Yet is is known that methane can be converted into hydrocarbons.
Abiotic reference.
http://www.gasresources.net/introduction.htm/
And this paper refutes biotic oil
https://web.archive.org/web/20070927000303/http://www.gasresources.net/…
Some history.
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/04/the-fossil-fuel-fable-a-co…
Chemical composition of Crude
http://chemistry.about.com/od/geochemistry/a/Chemical-Composition-Of-Pe…
A little bit of science
http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2011/CC/c0cc01886d#!divAb…
And a bit more science
https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Apr/NR-11-04-04.html
Then there is this.
http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/702.htm
And here's another link
You seem to have an ability to find kooky sites that are a) not scientific or b) school child type stuff for 12 year olds, did you not finish school? Im not here to try and educate you.
Biotic is a deep oil / gas "theory" has long been disproved as total bunkum.
Crude composition yep known, hydrogen and carbon, this is school A level stuff.
beforeitsnews is just out there nutty.
One site mentions oil at ultra deep, what it appears to mimic is how the original oil was formed, and has no theory on how oil got from ultra deep to where it is.
regards
On top of that we eat fossil fuels to get to 7billion. 10 to 30 calories of oil per 1 calorie of food.
Even by the most fanciful oil outputs its gone by 2050 when we are supposed to be at 9billion. From what I can read expect severe shortages by 2030, if not 2025.
Even that simple math should tell with no oil we wont be able to feed the people we have now let alone more.
regards
While admittedly a rough estimate, this calculation suggests that little confidence should be placed in the resource potential of abiogenic natural gas. In rift or convergent margin basins, hot magmatic fluids can strip methane and other volatiles from metamorphic basement and overlying sedimentary rocks, however, and commercial accumulations of this type of gas may be present. The economic value of such reserves could be impaired by dilution with carbon dioxide and possibly nitrogen. 171 refs., 13 figs., 2 tabs
http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/7052010
It has been recently discovered that thermophilic bacteria, in the sea bottom and in cooling magma, produce methane and hydrocarbon gases,[4][5] but studies indicate they are not produced in commercially significant quantities (i.e. in extracted hydrocarbon gases, the median abiogenic hydrocarbon content is 0.02%, or 1 part in 5,000).[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
regards
I guess the greens aren’t the future, perhaps Generation Zero is the future environmental party for the centre – centre right. They are a more pure environmental party without the skin crawl social policies and if National need them for a coalition government it is reasonable to expect they will be able to implement a significant sustainability policy. Perhaps they should start with a referendum on NZs population size, all sustainability problems are exacerbated by more people.
Greens policy on water below, summarised:
https://www.greens.org.nz/policy/summary/water
Their policy actually calls for water to remain, or returned to, public ownership. This means you.
Conservation is encouraged, not enforced.
You're being disingeneuous in comparing the Greens to Stalin (of course, you are). But you don't see to realise that life under the nats woule, eventually, become probably just as hard for ordinary kiws as it was for ordinary Russians under Stalin.
I take it you're not one of the 10%?
This means that life under the Nats woud get worse, whereas the Greens are advcocatn for a more equal distribution of wealth. Thi would mean that YOU would be better off under the Greens. Why would you be opposed to that?
@DFTBA ...I am not one of the 10% , and I still dont see how the Greens would ever leave me better off with their tax-and-spend-other-peoples-money Policies .
We are at a stage of our lives where my wife and I have a surplus , and I am saving providing for my retirement and old age , and saving some capital for my children who wil be trying to buy homes soon .
Why would ever support a party hell bent on trying to prevent me or penalise me for trying to do that ?
The Greens want to tax us into poverty , so we are all dependant on them .
The Greens have "worked" with National in the past. The problem is National's moderate mask is falling off as they desperately lurch further towards expoiltation of our non-renewable resouces in a one time grab.
To claim its 50% btw is to assume that is the only reason that 50% votes National, "just cause its left" that isnt justified IMHO. There is a swing voter and that looks more anti-labour than anti-green.
I'll agree in the "quest for votes" though, but then if you are not part of the Govn you cannot do anything, it could well prove a Faustian bargain with a bite.
regards
“…if you are not part of the Govn you cannot do anything…” – Well said, my point exactly.
"The problem is National's moderate mask is falling off as they desperately lurch further towards expoiltation of our non-renewable resouces in a one time grab."
If you believe that then surely you believe there is a place for a centre right environmental party to moderate their behaviour.
Yes and no, or rather complex answer unfolds.
Yes I think there could and should be a more centralist Green party and I wish there were. Like I say the present NZ Green party is a bit of a split personality and so would be a Green with right wing tendancies. In fact I'd suggest Green and right are mutually exclusive traits.
So no as the party would ideally be centralist/neutral on economic values. My personal choice would be Green first and moderate...you have to be pro-business but at the same time pro-people...a balancing act.
In terms of moderation, a centre right Green and National would result in a way to right mid point, ergo for me a Green slightly left with national right would be close to ideal.
In terms of moderation, I vote Green because I want a Green pull and not because I want a significantly left party, that is the next to last thing I want, with National being rock bottom last.
Ever heard of Margret Thatcher btw? great lady, she very much belived (I think) in being a custodian of the environment, unlike the present right wing nut jobs, this for me shows just how right national etc really are.
regards
Totally agree on National and the free market like:
Free to give Sky City a free run with no competition until 2048
Free to give $30m of our money to a dying smelter
Free to let the banks rape and pillage NZ
Free to allow the GCSB and Police to give away information to the US
Free to have cups of tea and offer accommodation to their even shadier allies
Free to let accusations that some NZ children are worse off than some on Indias slums
That is real free market ideology.
@Happy123 | 19 Jun 14, 9:20am,
The problem with Labour (and other parties) is that if they want to play with mud, they must be prepared to get dirty. Classic example was the way Labor played out their last election in Australia Fed election and in Queensland election 3 years ago.They dished out so much dirt and petty personal insults - they losted the elction and in Queensland they lost 70% of their seats to the Liberal.
Their loyalty wont change. The worry is the swing / moderate voter and DC looks a bit of a goner,
"The poll put the party at 23 per cent against 56.5 per cent for National. 8><---........Asked if it was hundreds of thousands of dollars, Key said: "We'll see ... that's for the Labour Party to make clear to the New Zealand public. Labour Party general secretary Tim Barnett said that as far as he was aware, Key's suggestions had no merit."
"as far as he was aware" ?? sounds like a bailout..
At this rate the Green's will be No2 by September.
maybe we'll see an improvement in integrity from Pollies, but I ownt hold my breadth. underlying this though it shows how desperate Parties are for financing.
regards
'Mutiny!' They cried...
'Scandal!' They hollahed...
Meanwhile, if you look at the facts he's actually done nothing wrong and nobody in the Labour is questioning his leadership. Comparing an immigration recomendation letter 11 years ago to Maurice Williamson's blatant corruption just a few weeks ago is embarrassing journalism.
First Len Brown, now David Cunliffe - The Herald really is on a crusade to remove centre-left politicians from office.
Everyone knows NZ Herald is a right winged media outlet - pity that it doesn’t belong to Rupert (yet!).
It’s obvious that DC hadn’t done anything wrong; his only mistake was his cockiness by selling the “trust me” message then denying outright that he had nothing to do with Liu. At his level he should know that one shouldn’t admit to anything even that if there is a smallest of doubt. I blame Matt..
Relax folks , no one within Labour is gonna challenge DC this side of his imminent thrashing in the forthcoming election ....
... no one wants to emulate Mike Moore ...
Robbo and Jacinda will oust Cunny post election , and take #1 & #2 possies respectively .....
... reckon they'd have a fair crack at little Johnny & the Gnats , circa 2017 .
My My.
Labour are toast because National is moving in on their territory.
Offering a mix of mostly, crony capitalist, socialist and liberal progressive policy.
Surely we must consider this 'left', considering the 'centre' is an average between;
capitalism vs socialism, conservatism vs liberalism.
So fitting that the Greens dont call themselves the Communist Green Party.
The facts remain David Cunliffe cannot be trusted
- Maurice Williamson wrote a letter to "help" Mr Liu
- David Cunliffe wrote a letter to "help" Mr Liu
- Maurice Williamson was caught and admitted it
- David Cunliffe was caught , and DENIED it at first
- Maurice Williamson did the honourable and honest thing and resigned
- David Cunliffe has shown he has no scruples and is dishonest
- Can we ever trust David Cunliffe ?
I would NEVER want to see someone so dishonest as Prime Minister
I know you are a good National man but surely you can see the two things are completely different. If you are spinning the facts to suit your agenda and are aware of it then that is fine. If you truely believe that a letter asking time frames for a decision from immigration that Cunliffe personally didn't even write is the same as Maurice contacting police personally in regard to a criminal investigation then good luck to you.
David Cunliffe's biggest problem is his lack of personality not his honesty.
Look , my view is that what happened to Maurice Williamson was exactly the same . Labour got hold of correspondence from Williamson to the Police , asking about the status of the Liu case .
Labour then ambushed Williamson in Parliament with the details of that correspondence .
Now Labour are crying foul when they have been exposed for being caught up to their necks in the Liu sewer .
And Labour received donations for Liu
What did Labour expect?
That we the NZ public would not see it for what it is ?
Give us a little more credit for our intelligence please
John Key is polite when he refers to Cunliffe as Tricky.
Cunliffe tells us he works and cares for the poor and downtrodden , but wears expensive suits and lives in Herne Bay, and this all serves to mask his real persona , that of a dishonest and manipulative pseudo leftwing crook.
Quite simply he cannot be trusted with anything more than wind -up toy , and certainly not a modern sophisticated and developed free market economy
As of today, Cunliffe gets a last minute reprieve - he's off the hook
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11278299
Dot talk too soon , Tricky Cunliffe's not off the hook just yet.
Look at whats happened to the other two idiots who got mixed up with Liu : -
Williamson is gone and he was a real idiot
Banks is going to jail ( maybe)
I never really trusted John Banks , and the same goes for Tricky Cunliffe
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.