Political story of the day

 

The round-up of political stories while Politics Daily is taking a break seemed  like a good idea but it was taking too much time.

Instead, I’ll feature a political story of the day and welcome you to add others.

My pick is: Can Cunliffe survive?

John Armstrong doubts it.

David Cunliffe is in deep political trouble. So deep that his resignation as Labour’s leader may now be very much in order. . . .

Andrea Vance explains that his caucus could dump him:

In only two days time, Labour MPs have a three-month window to get rid of David Cunliffe.

The party’s dismal showing in the polls would be reason enough for the leader to be nervous.

But today’s revelations about his dealings with wealthy political donor Donghua Liu should have Cunliffe contemplating a return to the backbenches.

From Friday, his caucus has a small window to dump the leader without triggering a primary-style contest that would require the Labour party membership to vote.

In other words, after having an unpopular choice foisted on them in November, MPs are back in control. . .

What will the majority of members and unions who made Cunliffe leader think of that?

51 Responses to Political story of the day

  1. Freddy says:

    Cunliffe is an arrogant fool…it would be a disaster if he were to become our PM…we need clear, clean leadership with intellectual integrity…cunliffe is not a leader’s backside..!..

    Like

  2. JC says:

    More to come about very large undeclared donations as I understand. If so then it goes much wider than Cunliffe..

    JC

    Like

  3. Southern says:

    Funny enough, you don’t se bOb guyton in here spouting off about Cunliffe, small minded toss pot (guyton that is), well actually both of them are….

    Like

  4. Freddy says:

    Too be honest, my people would be quite happy (relieved) if Cunliffe were to lead Labour up to election day.

    Like

  5. RBG says:

    “More to come about very large undeclared donations as I understand”- really JC? What makes you think that? It’s comments like yours (there are similar ones from other rightwingers elsewhere in the blogosphere) that make this look very much like the work of National’s dirty tricks club.
    This is a letter from 11 years ago that asks a question for Mr Lui. Not advocating for him, just asking a question. Cunliffe was set up by someone who had this letter in their possession. That he can’t recall details of every letter from 11 years ago is hardly a sacking offense.

    Like

  6. TraceyS says:

    “Cunliffe was set up by someone who had this letter in their possession…”

    Yeah true. The letter was in the public possession. That’s why it was subject to the OIA.

    Like

  7. Freddie says:

    Liu was then as he is now a major property developer, he was planning skyscape changing developments for Auckland. If Cunliffe can’t reminder dealings with someone of his profile, why is he an electorate MP…the man is a liar. !

    Like

  8. RBG says:

    They had it as a RESULT of the OIA request. But lets hear from JC, more to come?

    Like

  9. RBG says:

    Well, well, well, it turns out that John Key knew about the letter weeks ago, but didn’t tell his mate Bill (or TraceyS). But John might have told his mate JC who knows there’s more to come. JC seems to have realised he’s said too much and is staying quiet now. Can’t try and pretend this is the work of independent journalists when it has the mucky paws of National’s smear campaign team all over it. Better have a word to John and Bill Homepaddock, bit of disunity on show today.

    Like

  10. TraceyS says:

    “Well, well, well, it turns out that John Key knew about the letter weeks ago…”

    And David Cunliffe knew 11 years ago that he was adding to the public record. Or he should have. If he didn’t know then he didn’t understand his role.

    Like

  11. Mr E says:

    Did anyone see the airport interview of Cunliffe? Where he referred to male and female reporters as “gentlemen”.
    Bumbling, bumbling, bumbling. I guess a seemingly endless list of errors can be attributed to pressure. Doesn’t make him leadership quality.

    Like

  12. RBG says:

    “And David Cunliffe knew 11 years ago that he was adding to the public record. Or he should have. If he didn’t know then he didn’t understand his role.” – FFS- what is that supposed to mean TraceyS?
    Guessing you are not a morning report listener. Cunliffe said this morning that his office does not keep all paper records going back 11 years (neither does my work, whose does these days?)
    His electorate office has had 1 hard drive damaged by a power surge and another one stolen (stolen, faint echoes of watergate perhaps?).
    So what “should have” Cunliffe done differently TraceyS, had he “understood his role”?

    Like

  13. Paranormal says:

    RPG funny how its different when the shoe is on the other foot.

    And don’t give us “it’s a National plot”. This is coming from inside Liarbour. National wouldn’t have had access to the photos now in the public domain of Liu and his wife at Liarbour fundraising events. National have been fed the letters by those inside Liarbour intent on destabilising the party for their own ends. Our very own house of cards….

    Like

  14. RBG says:

    “National have been fed the letters by those inside Liarbour intent on destabilising the party for their own ends”

    Bullshit Paranormal. It IS a National party smear campaign, though, they may well be being helped by ex Labour party members.

    The letter was in Mr Liu’s immigration file. Mr Woodhouse requested the file. Mr Woodhouse is not being “open and transparent”. This is from the Herald.

    • 2pm Mr Woodhouse denies telling Mr Key about the letters
    • 3pm Mr Woodhouse says officials from his office briefed Mr Key’s office on the letters.
    • 7pm Mr Woodhouse’s office says the minister himself told Mr Key’s office about the letters and his office also gave copies of the letters to Mr Key’s office.

    Strictly speaking, Mr Woodhouse may have not PERSONALLY told Mr Key about the letters, so it could be argued that his 2pm comment is not a lie.

    Like

  15. Mr E says:

    Paranormal – I like where RG is going with this.

    If it is a “National plot” – massive credit to National. They obviously keep better records of the Labour parties activities, than the labour party do.

    If National has in fact plotted – and embarrassed the opposition, whilst running the country, WOW! Credit.

    Discrediting is usually the behaviour of opposition parties. For Labour to be exposed so easily, either shows a weak Labour party or a strong National.

    RG is suggesting a strong National Party.

    Like

  16. Gravedodger says:

    Paranormal has it IMHO, the grinning cheshire cat behind Cunliffe in his pressers says much.
    “you won the three way match you arrogant prick but there will be a steaming pile where you had your victory dais”.

    Beltway Robbo, who else had easy access to the immigration files and the deep secrets around undeclared and never recorded large donations.

    Grant Robertson, graduate from the school of dark arts run by H1 and H2. Such an out standing scholar he earned the moniker H3.

    National knew about the letter for sure, open secret was an understatement but good ole Robbo has had the numbers on Mr C for several days now but would rather wait until Mr C crashes and burns as he has electability issues best surmounted in a smoking ruin as the man (sic) who saved the NZLP.
    Now that obscure rule about leadership rules in the three month window have a significant importance now, it is caucus alone again.
    Maybe get some popcorn in.

    Like

  17. RBG says:

    RBG is suggesting that National are behind this and that Michael Woodhouse is misleading the NZ public.
    RBG is also suggesting that John Armstrong should be feeling pretty stupid after his strident calls for Cunliffe to resign have shown his true colours.

    Like

  18. robertguyton says:

    “I guess a seemingly endless list of errors can be attributed to pressure. Doesn’t make him leadership quality.”

    Have you read the list (it’s a looooong one) of John Key’s errors, brain-fades, forgettings and mis-speaks, Mr E?

    If you had, you’d have had to hold your nose when you wrote the above. “Doesn’t make him leadership quality” indeed!

    Like

  19. RBG says:

    Hey robert guyton, lots of this lot think I am you commenting anonymously. I’ve got work to do now just when you have joined the discussion, so they’ll probably all be convinced of it now. Funny eh? Still, you, me and the GCSB know I’m not you. That Mr Woodhouse can’t get his story straight from 1 month ago, but apparently that’s ok with this lot.

    Like

  20. Mr E says:

    Sure, I’ve kept tabs on both. And both make mistakes.

    And you will note there are times that I recognised improvements in Cunliffe’s presence.

    However as the vote gets closer, I tend to put more value behind my assessment of Blunders. If I consider my tallies so far – Key wins – hands down. And the public tend to agree. Check the preferred Prime minister polls. Cunliffes at 12%, Key is at 53%

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10174778/Poll-shows-Labours-support-plummeting

    What was Norman? 3%? Let’s not bother talking about him at all. Or should it be Metiria 1%? Or Norman? Or Metiria? or Norman? Indecisive greens are humorous.

    If you add the 3 left leaders together – 15%. That’s right 15%!!!!!!!!
    Even added together I think they look weak and silly. Funny that such a comment reflects so much about the left at the moment..

    To be frank, I am a bit gutted. I wish the left was stronger. But they are not.

    Like

  21. Everything National Party MPs do is ‘okay with this lot’, RGB, rest assured. Woodhouse? Collins? Banks?Key? Parata? Bennett? English? The list of ‘Woodhouses” goes on and on and on and it all fails to dent the belief of those here.
    Gutted, Mr Enonymous?
    Ele claims the election result is on a ‘knife-edge’.
    You claim the challengers look weak and silly. You two need to get your stories straight.

    Like

  22. Let’s see, Mr E – perhaps you could explain these curious events…

    • 2pm Mr Woodhouse denies telling Mr Key about the letters

    • 3pm Mr Woodhouse says officials from his office briefed Mr Key’s office on the letters.

    • 7pm Mr Woodhouse’s office says the minister himself told Mr Key’s office about the letters and his office also gave copies of the letters to Mr Key’s office.

    Here’s the background so you can make a considered and honest comment:
    Mr Cunliffe seized on that saying: “You should ask the Government how come the Prime Minister had a copy of that letter when media put in an OIA on Monday and it came to media by Wednesday and he had it two weeks earlier”.

    That was a question he put to acting Prime Minister Bill English in Parliament yesterday.

    He later told the Herald he decided the front foot the issue in Parliament because of “the recognition that the prime minister’s own admission that he’d had the letter for weeks before it was issued through an OIA and the inconsistency between the way that OIA was treated and other similar requests”.

    That had “created a very strong impression in the public mind that the Government’s been playing politics with this issue”.

    “People are starting to realise now that it’s starting to look like a political beat up.”

    Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse, whose department released the letter to the Herald on Wednesday, said he’d learned of it on May 9. He was told of the letter after he asked the department to review Mr Liu’s file following questions from the Opposition and media about his dealings with Liu.

    He initially told reporters yesterday that he wasn’t aware that Mr Key had received a copy of the letter before Mr Cunliffe was made aware of it on Wednesday.

    “I haven’t spoken to John Key at all about the Donghua Liu situation. It’s possible officials have briefed his office on the existence of the letters. I’m not aware whether or not they were passed on.”

    However he later “clarified” his comments saying his office had briefed Mr Key’s office about the letter within a few days of learning of it.

    “That didn’t include sending the Prime Minister’s office the letter”, Mr Woodhouse said.

    But last night a spokesman from Mr Woodhouse’s office confirmed the Immigration Minister told an official from Mr Key’s office about the letter just a couple of day after learning of it. He also confirmed a copy of the letter was given to Mr Key’s office some time late last month.

    Senior Cabinet Minister and National Government strategist Steven Joyce yesterday denied any dirty tricks campaign against Mr Cunliffe.

    “Mr Cunliffe has been running his own dirty tricks campaign and it seems to be working. He hasn’t been telling himself what he’s been doing.”

    Minister’s account

    May 8: Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse is questioned in the House and by media about his meetings and any National Party association with Donghua Liu. Mr Woodhouse requests information on the file to see if there is anything relevant that he needs to know about. The Herald requests Liu’s residency file under the Official Information Act (OIA)

    May 9: In response to file review, Mr Woodhouse is verbally advised – among other things – of the existence of two Parliamentary advocacy letters regarding Donghua Liu, one from Mr Cunliffe and another from the office of Chris Carter.

    Weekend of 10-11 May: Mr Woodhouse informs Prime Minister John Key’s Office of the existence of the letters.

    Week 12-16 May: Mr Woodhouse’s office receives hard copy of letters.

    Mid-late May: Mr Woodhouse’s office provides copy of letters to the Prime Minister’s office.

    16 June: The Herald run story on Labour donations and connections. The Herald’s OIA request is declined on privacy grounds. The Herald puts in a refined OIA request for MP representations for Donghua Liu to Immigration NZ.

    18 June: Immigration NZ release Mr Cunliffe’s Donghua Liu letter to the Herald
    June 19:

    • 2pm Mr Woodhouse denies telling Mr Key about the letters

    • 3pm Mr Woodhouse says officials from his office briefed Mr Key’s office on the letters.

    • 7pm Mr Woodhouse’s office says the minister himself told Mr Key’s office about the letters and his office also gave copies of the letters to Mr Key’s office.

    Like

  23. Mr E says:

    “You two need to get your stories straight.”

    Heaven forbid individuals might have different opinions Robert!

    It is comments like these that make the left more like communists than socialists.

    Regarding your time frames – Look over there, not here, over there. As is typical, no criticism of the Cunliffe despite his brain fade. Let’s try and blame someone else – in desperation.

    Like

  24. “This morning the Herald sets out a very clear timeline from yesterday which shows that a senior member of this Government has been caught out lying. On May 9, 2014 Michael Woodhouse learned about the existence of the letter. He told John Key about this the next couple of days. Shortly after this he received a hard copy of the letter. At the same time a Herald OIA for the immigration file was declined on privacy grounds. By late May the Prime Minister’s office has a copy of the letter.

    Then on June 16 the Herald ran the story about the Liu donation to the Labour Party. Two days later and the day after the gocha question the letter is provided by Immigration NZ to the Herald.

    Yesterday at 2pm Mr Woodhouse denied telling Mr Key about the letters, then by 3 pm he said officials from his office briefed Mr Key’s office on the letters and then by 7 pm his office said the minister himself told Mr Key’s office about the letters and his office also gave copies of the letters to Mr Key’s office. It is amazing that Cunliffe should be criticised for forgetting something that happened 11 years ago but there is no criticism of Woodhouse for “forgetting” events that occurred in the past month.”

    My bold.

    Like

  25. Mr E. I’d like to talk about Woodhouse and his misleading of the public – his untruths. How about you? Does that sort of behaviour interest you or is it that when someone on your team does it, it doesn’t count?
    As for Mr Cunnliffe, whom you know isn’t part of the team I cheer for, I believe the charge that he forgot the details of a letter from 11 years ago is quite believable. Don’t you?

    Like

  26. Mr E says:

    *look more like*
    Sorry about the error

    Like

  27. Mr E says:

    Sure that behaviour interests me. I watch and measure all parties this close to the election.

    I think the brain fade is believeable. Although I can’t accept his party has made such a huge beat up about Mr Lui only to find they have records of their own dealings with Mr Lui. It is a Gaff of significant proportion. Unacceptable stuff. In my opinion some apologies are owed.

    If you don’t agree – maybe blame the media. They are making a storm in a teacup yes?

    Like

  28. Woodhouse’s behaviour interests you?
    What have you determined then? There’s plenty of information there for you to make a good judgement on whether he’s been truthful or not.
    What do you think?

    Like

  29. Mr E says:
    “As is typical, no criticism of the Cunliffe despite his brain fade.”
    Then Mr E says:
    “I think the brain fade is believable.”
    ?
    ?
    ?

    Like

  30. Mr E says:

    Acceptability is the issue for me Robert. I think I have made that clear.

    “Although I can’t accept his party has made such a huge beat up about Mr Lui only to find they have records of their own dealings with Mr Lui. It is a Gaff of significant proportion. Unacceptable stuff. In my opinion some apologies are owed.”

    Sure I am watching what happens with Mr Woodhouse. No doubt if there is a story their I will come out in good time.

    Like

  31. Mr E says:

    By the way I love the cartoon. And tend to agree. The whole affair has made Cunliffe look amateurish. I love the depiction of Cunliffe.

    Perfect image of him.

    Like

  32. Woodhouse’s claims have been “acceptable” to you, Mr E?
    How so?

    Like

  33. Mr E says:

    It did make me smile the latest- Yes. Although the serious element is we are a small Nation trying to foot it with the biggies.

    Try imagining Norman fronting up, knocking on the door with his little green booklets. Or perhaps he would be holding a sign in protest of the US. “DON”T EXTRADITE DOTCOM” – Errrrgh! A cold shiver just went down my spine.

    Regarding Woodhouse. I’m watching with interest. Waiting for the full story.

    Like

  34. No opinion yet on Woodhouse, “waiting for the full story’?
    Yet you condemn Cunliffe.
    Hypocritical behaviour there, Mr E.
    ps – your constant references to Russel Norman, who is in no way connected to these stories, shows you to be indulging in the very behaviour you rail about so often, Mr E – trolling.
    More hypocritical behaviour from you!
    When will it end?

    Like

  35. Mr E says:

    There is more to come forth regarding Cunliffe and Lui. Go on? Do you think Lui might have been donating, perhaps hidden sums as JC may be indicating?

    I had put the issue to bed – made my judgement. Perhaps there is more to condemn him as you suggest. Thanks, I’ll keep my mind open and look forward to more digging.

    Regarding Norman- You put up a link about NZ visiting the US, inviting my consideration. I comment on it – providing my frank thoughts, and you condemn me for it. If you can’t see the ridiculousness of your behaviour, I will have to pigeon hole you with other individuals displaying similar behaviour – perhaps even Cunliffe himself.

    Like

  36. “Do you think Liu…” – no, Mr E, I think your attempting to attribute actions/thoughts to me in order to broadcast your own point of view, is infantile. It’s a common ploy of yours and as transparent as wet tissue paper. And your excuse for bringing the Green co-leader into the discussion is classic troll – “it came into my head, so I said it” – and concretes-in your status as a troll.
    You did describe your intention though, to ‘pigeon hole’ me.
    No surprise there, it’s what you do, but interesting that you own the behaviour so readily.
    Bringing Russel into the discussion is equivalent to saying. “Imagine if John Banks had accompanied Key to Washington. President Obama would have been appalled to see the fraudster and might have asked Key, “Did you really pass the Sky City legislation that increased the number of gambling machines to a population that suffers from gambling problems, using the vote from this man who has been found guilty of electoral fraud. Mr Key? Did you, really??.
    See what happens when you open the door to the kind of behaviour you indulged in, Mr E? Anything goes.

    Like

  37. “It is bad enough that we had the Deputy Prime Minister intoning shock and surprise, just as the Prime Minister is gloating that he’s known about the letter for weeks. But yesterday we saw the added spectacle of Michael Woodhouse changing his mind within hours about when he first saw the letter, and what he did with it.”

    Like

  38. Mr E says:

    You attached the link Robert – the 1st action of distracting the readers – I think an action of trolling.

    At best I was distracted by your trolling. Hardly trolling behaviour. But who knows what your definition of trolling is, you seem not to worry about other claims that you do it.

    Before you were suggesting there is more to come regarding Cunliffe and Lui. Now you are saying there is not? Is that correct?

    Or is it that you don’t think Lui has made any donations despite reports of $15,000, signed bottles of booze auctioned and rumors of hundred of thousands of dollars?

    Like

  39. JC says:

    “and rumors of hundred of thousands of dollars?”

    Maybe its the “H-Fee”

    Tic toc.

    JC

    Like

  40. robertguyton says:

    “Letters of support from two Government MPs for Donghua Liu’s citizenship bid have been kept secret – despite letters from Labour politicians for his residency bid being released this week.

    The Herald reported in March that Liu received citizenship in 2010 against official advice after lobbying by Maurice Williamson, the Minister for Building and Construction, and John Banks, the Mayor of Auckland at the time who later entered Parliament as an Act MP.

    However, the Department of Internal Affairs refused to release the letters sent by Mr Williamson and Mr Banks under the privacy and commercial provisions in the Official Information Act.”

    Curious…

    Like

  41. robertguyton says:

    “This looks like a blatantly political release decision to advance the interests of the government of the day. It is an abuse of the Act which shames the entire public service and calls its impartiality into question. Transparency of official information applies to everyone, not just the government’s enemies.”

    Indeed.

    Like

  42. watershitdown: PM says Liu letters from Banks, Williamson suppressed for privacy reasons due to not being in national’s best interests.

    Like

  43. jabba says:

    brilliant, Cunliffe stuffs up yet again and it’s the National Parties fault. BRILLIANT.
    Voters seem to be getting the idea that DC would be a dead-loss PM and all things being equal, his deputy PM would be Metiria Turei, snigger

    Like

  44. Bingo Bob says:

    Cunliffe says two major donors are to remain anonymous…never seen a response to that one b0b…have you got an opinion or do you only have an opinion when it suits you?
    Cunliffes on borrowed time and paying high interest rates because he is high risk.

    Like

  45. Mr E says:

    Bingo Bingo Bob

    Like

  46. “The story was always at least a little dishonest, as the golden road up from poverty was never normal for more than a certain fraction of the population, and the wealth of the few always depended, as it always does depend in the real world, on the impoverishment of the many. ”

    http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.co.nz/2014/06/the-stories-of-our-grandchildren.html

    Like

  47. jabba says:

    will be plenty of cash available once the flattened trees on the West Coast are cleared/milled.

    Like

  48. Fran O’Sullivan on business

    “Similarly, the resignation calls Cunliffe faced after the Herald broke the story that the Labour leader had signed off a letter on behalf of Liu bordered on risible.

    That letter was clearly a pro forma note written by his staffers. There was no element of special pleading. It’s no wonder he had forgotten it. It should not have sparked a Gotcha call from political journalists.

    Sure National has delighted in watching the long, slow, curving ball play out which revealed Cunliffe had signed off a letter to Immigration NZ a decade ago to inquire on progress on the Chinese businessman’s residency application.

    But it would reach the heights of delusion to equate this episode with the obvious transgressions that cost Maurice Williamson his ministerial role when he called police on Liu’s behalf, and should have cost Judith Collins her place in the Cabinet when she overstepped the line in the Oravida saga.”

    Like

  49. Best image from the protest, the protester holding the sign that read, “Science over emotion”.
    Hilarious!
    The science says, NO, to the dam and the consequent intensification of agriculture, but these protesters, powered by emotion, are dismissing the science. That placard, ironic in the extreme.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: