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.