Armstrong on Arrogance
John Armstrong notes that Labour were talking humility at their weekend conference. He has a challenge though:
The real test, however, of whether this new humility is anything more than cosmetic is whether Labour is willing to ‘fess up to the complete and utter shambles that goes under the name of the Electoral Finance Act.
It would be hard to find another piece of legislation where Labour has not only got it so wrong, but also looked so arrogant in refusing to admit it.
Designed to stymie National booking an election-year splurge of advertising, the law has turned into the political equivalent of Frankenstein’s monster, paralysing parties’ communication with voters in ways that even the law’s biggest critics did not envisage.
Ahem, cough. With modesty I point out my blog post of 3 December 2007 where I said:
Now combined with the extension of the regulated period to all of election year, it means that anything an MP spends on publicity next year *may* be able to be counted as party or candidate expenditure under the Act, even if approved by the Parliamentary Service. It will have to be seen as encouraging or persuading people to vote, but that is not always clear cut as we saw with the pledge card.
So MPs had better be very careful with spending their $65,000 parliamentary budget. If $5,000 of that $65,000 they spend ends up classified as election advertising, and they have spent $16,000 directly on the campaign, then bang they have overspent and they are out of Parliament.
Every letter, every advert, every newsletter will be scrutinised for electioneering. There could be multiple election petitions to get rulings on what is or is not an election advertisement and does it qualify for the parliamentary purposes exemption. Where onece you could avoid this uncertainity by just not spending any of your parliamentary budget on advertising in the last 90 days, now you will have to second guess all your expenditure all year long.
Armstrong continues:
Labour’s arrogance has started to wilt as it has become more and more difficult to ignore or explain away the ever-rising number of glaring faults and inconsistencies emerging in the legislation.
It is noticeable Labour is no longer defending the measure with any vigour or enthusiasm. It has instead resorted to hurling petty insults at Bill English for relentlessly highlighting the fact that the act is unworkable.
Yeah, eight years of hard work by Annette King to give herself one of the best reputations for competence, has disappeared in a few short months.
Armstrong concludes:
As much as can be ascertained, Labour is contemplating grasping this nettle one way or the other. When tackled on the subject, the Prime Minister has been choosing her words very carefully. She has ruled nothing in. But neither has she ruled anything out. Watch this space.
The only amendment Labour will be interested is is one which allows them to spend taxpayer money on advertising without restriction. But hey they can introduce such a law change, but I sure as hell look forward to select committee submission on it.
April 19th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Fascinating that it came from John Armstrong. Up until now he has presented as a Government sycophant. Rats from a sinking ship perhaps?
April 19th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Glaring faults ???
What does he think the courts are full of lawyers and judges arguing over 100s of laws that have been around for a long time.
Ross careful you are out of touch with reality AGAIN ( I still remember last time)
..Up until now he has presented as a Government sycophant..
Armstrong is the parrot of McCully.. Normally his style is as a national party insider.. hinting at speeches to come and gentle scolding when it comes adrift.
A few years back it was one reporter to write stuff from the national point of view and another from the labour side.
Armstrong was the insider with national and never a cross word was said.
April 19th, 2008 at 11:02 am
John Hamstrung is always going to be a dog-whistler. Using his column to (he fondly imagines) influence the thinking and strategies of the upper echelons of the Labour Government. Reading between the lines – this is a signal that Labour will attempt to extricate themselves from this stupid law, but in such a way that they can ‘blame’ National for being the nasty-nay-sayers. Or, as Tane has already said with his eagerness to signal the Labour Party line – ‘play poilitics’.
Labour and its minions are already attempting to put themselves up as the ‘good guys’ in favour of ‘transparency’ (while paradoxically accusing every National attempt to achieve clarification about the law as a covert operation to suppress freedom of expression). That is the world they inhabit, and the world they would have you inhabit also..
April 19th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Ah GHW3 … whatever pulls your bell old son. But its great to see that even Labour loyalists like you have totally given up on trying to defend the EFA. Your bastard creation is biting you big time and you deserve nothing less.
Oh and BTW …. which one of your dickwit colleagues decreed that Wednesdays NZ Defence Force medals ceremony was to be held in the Labour Party Caucus Room in Parliament? I can be pretty partisan but there are boundaries you don’t cross and thats one of them … but then your mob have thrown all those conventions out the window. Sad, sad, sad.
April 19th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Ross they are just making the most of the facilities.
April 19th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Kind of on topic, a fucken good laugh. Received this yesterday,
“The Labour party have today changed thier logo to a condom as it more accurately reflects their political stance.
A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks, and gives you a sense of security while you are actually being fucked”.
Enjoy
April 19th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Lee C … well, if you believe that then how come, once it was pointed out that this was totally inappropriate, was it suddenly transferred to the Beehive Theatrette which was always available?
April 19th, 2008 at 11:48 am
I think people tend to label journalists as sycophants for the Government or the Opposition far too often. John (and most gallery journalists) present pretty honest opinion. I may disagree with their conclusions or facts, I may think they are being sensationalist, I may think they are wrong even, but I prefer not to impugn their motives – something best left to the blogs of the left in my opinion who would have you believe certain newspapers work for corporate interests etc.
April 19th, 2008 at 11:57 am
If John Armstrong is being labled as a sympathiser for both parties, then that should mean he has a balanced viewpoint from my perspective.
April 19th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
The latest Listener (April 26) has a strongly worded Editorial about the EFA.
It is titled “When the law is an ass”
April 19th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
I have just seen a caravan with Aunty Helen and Labour Party all over it down on Dominion Rd near the Balmoral shops. The caravan was being towed by a Metrolpoltan Rentals ute. Does this count as election spending under the rort that is the EFA ? Didn’t have camera to record the event but it is probably stilll there. Didn’t seem to be attracting much interest and I don’t think herself was there.
April 19th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
I have just seen a caravan with Aunty Helen and Labour Party all over it down on Dominion Rd near the Balmoral shops. The caravan was being towed by a Metropolitan Rentals ute. Does this count as election spending under the rort that is the EFA ? Didn’t have a camera to record the event but it is probably still there. Didn’t seem to be attracting much interest and I don’t think herself was there.
April 19th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Casual –
There’s one just down the road from us too.
With Helen and Fairbrother on it.
Seen by probably 5- 10k cars per day.
How do you assign a cost to it though?
The one here in Napier is parked in someones front yard that just happens to be on a busy (for Napier) intersection.