Labour believes that the Parliament genuinely is a people’s parliament. Even if people have differing views.So when Labour was asked (by the National Party on behalf of the Speaker) whether we objected to the Sensible Sentencing Trust holding a conference in the parliament, we said no we don’t object. After all the parliament is actually owned by the people.
It is our understanding that all the major parties were asked.
That’s it. The Labour Party was never approached to co-host. I was never approached or asked if my name could appear on the invitation. This happened without my knowledge or my permission.
Perhaps The Standard should have checked.
End of.
That’s good to know and confirmed my suspicion that it was parliamentary protocol, not endorsement. Do you know yet why the SST are claiming Labour co-hosted the event?
Thanks for that Clayton. Had a feeling when I read that post yesterday that something wasn’t right. If TVoR is correct – and I’m sure he probably is – that would be typical of the right-wing SST to misrepresent the situation for their own purposes.
He he he
I saw that post at The Standard and thought it was an odd combo 
Can’t be too hard on The Standard though, they usually write excellent posts
Oh yeah, hat tip to The Standard for inventing a great word: Goffice
Mmmm – I don’t recall Labour doing any consulting when they got rid of Appeals to the Privy Council.
Wow, and it took y’all a mere 4 days to correct it … which doesn’t exactly scream that Labour were bothered by the association being made.
@pdm: even if we hadn’t jumped, London would eventually have pushed us. It was starting to tire of its former colonies freeloading off it.
Mr Cosgrove – are you really surprised. The Standard hates the Labour Party. Here’s a challenge. Find an article on The Standard about Phil Goff or his staff that isn’t critical.
Even Farrar is more supportive of Goff.
@anne” that would be typical of the right-wing SST to misrepresent the situation for their own purposes.”
Everything is a conspiracy huh?
Colonies free loading off London?
England was the most prosperous country in the world while free loading off her colonies.
Like taking all our raw materials and refusing to allow the colonies to sell any value added products.
Sending as shoddy low value manufactured goods at high prices.
Keeping most of the profits in England.
Sound familiar.
Meanwhile back on topic…glad to see this formally confirmed. It did feel a rather odd fit. The SST is practically an Act branch now…
Thanks for clearing this up Clayton. I look forward to hearing how you get on raising the issue with SST that they appear to have given people the impression Labour, and you, did support them.
I too had the impression Labour was co-hosting the conference. It was reported in the media, and nobody in Labour (until now) publicly denied it. Why has it taken so long for this to be clarified?
Maybe instead of blaming the Standard for believing something in the media that nobody in Labour bothered to deny (until now), Labour could work a bit harder on its communications strategy.
I agree about speed of response!
@Scott It always amuses me when people complain about not getting information. At the same time as they are being given information.
Now you have it. Perhaps you could just say Ok. That’s good to know. Phew. Thanks for telling us.
Claire, don’t you think it’s a bit rich of your fellow Labour MP to attack The Standard when it’s taken days for Labour to finally get around to denying any involvement with the SST conference? That’s what really bugs me about this post.
And sorry I spelt your name “Claire”
@Scott We can always be better at things.
Scott, the delay is probably more indicative of how regularly people read the Standard these days.
And Spud, the word Goffice seriously predates the Standard.
Aw, c’mon all! We all know The Standard, (like John Key) is infallible.
I’ve posted a retraction on this. I’ve got to say that it is extremely unusual for a lobby group to publicly claim it has the support of a political party when it doesn’t and I apologise for taking McVicar at his word.
I would hope that you make a big deal of this as it isn’t just a very public lie but an attack on the core Labour values that runs the risk of misleading your base.
If a left-wing group were to falsely claim the support of Act they would be crucified as liars and frauds.
My advice would be to chase these liars and their lies down in the media as hard as you can. Their behaviour is simply unacceptable and you need to make an example of them or risk further hijacking of the Labour brand.
Hunt them down like the running dogs they are.
ffs why do Labour MPs let Rob Egan aka Irish Bill and the EPMU tell you what to do ? Are you the peoples Labour party or the just the Union’s Labour party ?
Try and keep up, Gitmo. The problem isn’t the Standard, Irish Bill or the EPMU. The problem is the SST exaggerating for effect and claiming a relationship that does not exist.
I look forward to McVicar going on telly and apologising for this blatant deceit. Bet he won’t though. As the, ahem, victim here, its up to Labour how they deal with this. I’d suggest a quiet word with the Trust and leave it at that.
How about Labour make a public announcement that they do not support the Sensible Sentencing Trust, see how well that goes down with the public.
The parliament building is owned by the people; Parliament is made up of representatives of ‘the people’.
If it were up to the SST a large portion of ‘the people’ would not be represented by Parliament(and, rather, would rot in prison).
@ Doug – Brilliant !!!! But of course they wont..
I’m surprised to see anyone objecting to the trashing of privy council appeals, Australia hasnt had it for years, so it’s just closing the gap policy right?
This is more worthy of its own thread, but it seems the well-heeled can buy their way out of the courtroom, or otherwise get off with a wet bus ticket.
So it implies that “tough on crime” policies in their current form aren’t so much about justice as they are about prolephobia (or whatever fear of the poor is called).
@DeepRed-You could make a difference if you get behind the crusade that Whale is campaigning on, you don’t often see the “poor” with name suppression.
Thanks Sufi, I shouldn’t have jumped to conclusions
Cool word though
Does this mean the taxpayer is paying for the venue for the conference, are we paying for speakers etc as well? I’m not sure how usual this is, to have a conference hosted at parliament. What are the criteria for getting it there, for free?
“comments by people such as Kim Workman of Rethinking Crime and Punishment that people abusing positions of privilege and committing financial crimes got softer treatment than burglars.”
I agree. IF you hold a position of public standing, like he police, then when you transgress your punishment ought to be higher.
Thank-you Deep Red. Prolephobia. Just seen it and love it.