0 Hide on Labour's risky strategy

Rodney Hide reckons that Labour is walking a tightrope with the Donghua Liu donations saga. In his Herald on Sunday piece, and under the headline Risky response to donor row Hide opines:

Deny, deny, deny. Attack, attack, attack. That's been Labour's response to businessman Donghua Liu claiming he donated tens of thousands of dollars to the Party.
Labour's strategy is risky. It is challenging Liu's honesty and integrity. He's no doubt feeling aggrieved. The danger for Labour is that Liu produces documents, witnesses and photographs confirming his substantial donations.
That's what did it for Winston Peters in 2008. Sir Owen Glenn was able to prove the donations that Peters denied.
Labour also risks drying up its donations. Attacking a donor is hardly encouraging to others. I doubt there will too many Chinese charity auctions for Labour this election.
It's a risky response but Labour's entire attack strategy has been risky. Attacking John Banks for declaring Dotcom's donations as anonymous ran the risk that its own house wasn't in order. Likewise in attacking Maurice Williamson for ringing the police on Liu's behalf.

Cunliffe's letter 11 years ago for Liu wouldn't have mattered except for the hellfire and brimstone he visited on National for similar advocacy. It's true Cunliffe wasn't ringing the police. It's true Liu wasn't facing charges. But such difference matters constitutionally. It doesn't matter politically.
As far as headlines and soundbites go, Cunliffe has been caught doing exactly what he railed against.

Hide is dead right; perception is everything in politics,and the perception is that David Cunliffe has been a hypocrite. He and his MP's attacked National with relish, and made all sorts of accusations towards National MP's.

Had they restricted themselves to simply attacking National MP's, this may have passed without comment. But the likes of Trevor Mallard, aided and abetted by Winston Peters who relishes any opportunity to attack Chinese, made a series of allegation against National's apparent mate. One of those accusations was that he was downright corrupt, offering cash for changes to immigration policy. Like most of the accusations Mr Mallard makes, always under the cover of parliamentary privilege, he has yet to substantiate it.

But Labour took things one step too far, impugning Donghua Liu's reputation. That's when he started talking about his links to the Labour Party, at a time when David Cunliffe was a senior Minister. The rest, as they say, is (or will be) history.

Hide continues:

So where are we now? Confused. Liu said he gave substantial money to the Labour Party. The Labour Party says it has no record of it, and hasn't reported any donations from Liu.
But it's quite possible that everyone is telling the truth. The money could have been stolen. That would mean Liu gave the money but Labour never received it. Charity auctions and the like are often chaotic and it is too easy to have no one properly in charge of recording and receipting all payments and donations. This is especially so in political events. Volunteers are enthusiastic but not necessarily experienced and politicians are anxious to stay well away from money changing hands.
Indeed, a big part of Cunliffe's problem - and Banks' and Williamson's - is that politicians shy away from fundraising details precisely to avoid the perception that cash influences decision-making.

It is indeed possible that no one in Labour actually saw any of the money donated by Liu; possible, but highly improbable, we would say. We base that on information that we have heard in the last week; information which may or may not have got as far as Jared Savage from the NZ Herald. If even some of it is correct, Labour had better hope that no one has broken ranks. 

And Donghua Liu lawyering up, and giving documents to Paul Davidson QC whilst seeking financial records from his homeland ought to be worrying to Labour. What is in the financial records that Mr Liu is so anxious to share with his lawyer?

Hide closes, with a message that might send shivers up David Cunliffe's spine:

The safer course of action for the Labour Party would be to say it was treating the matter seriously. That would mean thanking Liu for coming forward with his information and inviting the police to investigate. The police could try to trace the money, letting Cunliffe off the hook. He would have done everything by the book. He would be open and upfront. It would also kill the story. He couldn't comment while police were investigating.
But Labour didn't do that. It denied and attacked.
There's a reason politicians do the things they do. Cunliffe couldn't be sure what the police would find. Calling in the police runs the risk of finding out more than Cunliffe wants to know.

David Cunliffe ought to remember that a "deny, deny, deny; attack, attack, attack" strategy is akin to poking a stick into a wasp's nest. As leader of the party, David Cunliffe is the one most likely to be stung if the wasps decide to fight back, and he is forced to defend, defend, defend.

There's an old saying in politics; never ask a question you don't already know the answer to. That would appear to be a strategic mistake on the part of Mr Cunliffe, and those who advise him, or who blog on Labour's behalf. It is going to be fascinating to see where this story goes, but a tweet yesterday from Herald editor Tim Murphy provides a clue:

We'd say the Donghua Liu saga still has some surprise twists and turns, and the exhortations to "move on" from the likes of Greg Presland towards the end of the week just gone may have been more in hope than anything else.  

0 Tweets of the Day - 13 May 2014

John Key has questioned whether David Cunliffe's reported media trainer is conflicted; the Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key has questioned another broadcaster's links to the Labour Party following the party's veto of journalist Shane Taurima.

Labour this morning confirmed that they would not allow Mr Taurima to seek the party nomination for Tamaki Makaurau.
The decision followed confirmation in an independent report that he had misused TVNZ funds for political purposes while he was head of Maori programming.
Mr Key said Labour's actions were expected.
But he was also surprised to learn that journalist-turned-lawyer Linda Clark, who fronts TV3's show The Vote, was providing media training to Labour leader David Cunliffe.

"In the same way that MPs and ministers have to manage their conflicts of interest, it's also true for the media.
"I don't know how she's managing that situation but she'll just have to demonstrate to viewers that she's managing it appropriately."
Mr Key said it was not unusual for media commentators to provide these services - he was trained by former TVNZ head of news Bill Ralston.
But he said it was important that viewers knew of any political connections.
TV3 did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The revelation has prompted some amusing, and some thought-provoking tweets; first up is Bill Ralston, who freely admits having worked with John Key:

Next up is the Herald's Business editor, Liam Dann:

Ralston again, followed by Matthew Hooton (there's no connection between these two tweets; they just happened to run consecutively on our timeline):

Lastly (for now) Tim Murphy from the Hera;d replies to Ralston's original tweet.

Karen Price was indeed the star of Campbell Live's At Home With... segment last night as she fed the chooks, cleaned out the beehive with bees buzzing all around her then whipped the cream for the pikelets. Mr Cunliffe's main contribution to the segment was going to the fish and chippery, and taking John Campbell for a beer whilst the Friday night shark and tatties were frying.

It will be interesting to see the next preferred Prime Minister rankings. We predict that Karen Price will rate higher as Preferred PM than her husband!