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.Cosgrove is responding to a post on The Standard critical of Labour's associations with the Sensible Sentencing Trust (I also wrote a critical post, but am led to believe that the audience for this blog may be slightly smaller than The Standard's). A media report indicated the conference was being hosted by Labour. It has taken until now for anyone in Labour to deny this.
It's a pity it has taken until now for this to be cleared up. A cynic might conclude that Labour either wasn't fussed by the association with Garth McVicar and his nutjob group, or that it was too afraid to break rank with the law and order mob.
I'm sure there's a reason why this wasn't mentioned during the conference. Wouldn't want to give old Garth one of those juicy soundbites about out-of-touch politicians, huh?
Now this has been cleared up, I await Clayton Cosgrove's denunciation of the Sensible Sentencing Trust's use of Labour's name to promote its organisation.
But a question: how long should I wait?