Is it just me, or is Gordon Campbell becoming more sane. Â
Who knew that David Cunliffeâs speech to last yearâs Labour Party conference was not a new beginning, but the last gasp of the credible phase of his leadership? In itself, his 2003 letter to the Immigration Service was innocuous. Yet only a Jesuit could make the fine distinction that Labour is now trying to make between Cunliffeâs inquiry about how long Donghua Liuâs residency application was taking, and outright âadvocacyâ for that application to be approved. Not surprisingly, such letters are seen by officials as âhurry upâ reminders, and are intended to serve as such. This was advocacy; the same advocacy that Cunliffe had just this week denied ever making. Probably he did so unknowingly. Either way though â fool or knave â itâs not a good look.
The inability of Cunliffe and his staff to adequately research Cunliffeâs track record with Liu is also lamentable â especially given that photos of Labour MPs in the friendly company of Liu had already emerged. Yet earlier this week, Cunliffe had been left to paint himself into a corner of denial, only to be sandbagged by the revelation of the letterâs existence. As yet, we are still reliant on Labour Party researchers to verify whether Labour did or didnât receive a sizeable donation from Liu. It should be remembered that National Cabinet Minister Maurice Williamson resigned because of his meddling in a Police investigation and not over a donations scandal, per se. Yet Labour had gone on to use the meddling/donation link to Liu as ammunition in its general attack on National and its fat cat donors. All it will take now is evidence of a donation from Liu to LabourÂ to put the noose firmly around Labourâs neck. Â Read more »