Is Damien in trouble?

Damien O'Connor is a bit of a maverick MP. When he made his "gaggle of gays and self-serving unionists" comment after Labour's party list was released, it was clear that he had alienated himself from a large chunk of Labour's caucus. He earned himself a rebuke from his leader, although O'Connor himself may be one of Phil Goff's few supporters in the Labour caucus.

But we don't know what has prompted this outburst on Red Alert last night - he blogs:

I thought we lived in a free democracy. Since when did a sign become illegal when expressing an opinion or encouraging people to act? Does this ban all signs at marches that may in any way be linked to a movement or political party. The EC needs to pull their heads in. This is not the 1930s in Europe.

This is really odd. In blogging this cryptic post, O'Connor has raised far more questions than he has answered. Obviously, something has gone down at the Electoral Commission (EC). What could it be?

Has there been a complaint to the Electoral Commission about Damien O'Connor? Has the Electoral Commission referred more alleged breaches of electoral advertising to the Police to investigate? Or perhaps the Police officers investigating the complaint referred to them by the Electoral Commission have made a decision, and the Labour Party is about to be prosecuted.

And O'Connor's not alone in his criticism of the Electoral Commission; Clare Curran has commented:

Hope the Electoral Commission is reading this. Is this what our democracy has come to?

I agree with you Damien

Well; here's the kicker. It was the LABOUR Party which passed the insidious Electoral Finance Act. Long-time readers will remember that Keeping Stock originally came into being because of our oppsition to Labour's attempts to limit free speech in election years.

But wait; there's more. Labour voted FOR the repeal of the Electoral Finance Act, and FOR the replacement legislation, which was advanced by Justice Minister Simon Power.

That inconvenient little fact diminishes Labour's online bleat. Had Labour opposed tighter restrictions on electoral advertising, O'Connor and Curran might have a point. But Labour didn't, and so they don't

And that, dear readers, is called the Law of Unintended Consequences. Labour is hoist by its own petard, and seems to believe that it is above both the law that it created, and the replacement law it supported.