Is Labour as guilty of taking money as National spin suggests?
I’ve just read the 17th June, 2005 report on Government and parliamentary publicity and advertising report written by the Auditor-General, KB Brady. Now as someone pointed out to me, “nowhere in it does it say anything has been updated it calls for the rules to be clarified (presumably with various committees coming together over some months) certainly no way it could be done prior to the election”
And I note in the report that there is a possible loophole here for Labour…
6.8
There is no guidance as to how this should be applied in the period before Parliament is dissolved. However, there is clear potential for MPs’ and parliamentary parties’ publicity and advertising activities in the weeks and months leading up to a dissolution to bring considerable party political benefit. That potential increases as political content is permitted in such publicity and advertising.
Until the final report is released, I think throwing around the word Corruption by National is very misleading.
posted by Bomber @ 12:19 pm
4 comments
4 Comments:
...
Yes - but Mark (in terms of the Electoral Act) as Audrey Young points out in the Herald today, the word corruption is a legal term in the Electoral act, and it is being used as a political one by National
Leave corruption out of it - Labour has been quietly milking this unhappy cash cow for a few years and finally got caught out. Sad now that they have to actually fundraise for their next election campaign :[
Now pay the money back.
EVERYONE milked this cow. National included. And the rules weren't clear anough to prevent it.
...
Labour better have some good answers in this report about to be released, because I'm getting sick of defending the woman
Post a Comment
<< Home