The issue gripping the New Zealand Parliament over the use of video clips may seem small beer compared to the crisis paralysing the House of Commons and the scandal threatening the United States President.
But it is still important on many levels, not least because the Speaker's current takedown order places limits on one of the most effective weapons National leader Simon Bridges has developed in his bid to gain power next election.
And that is what lies behind the vehemence of National's response.
Its defiance of the takedown order is ultimately a bid to get a quicker resolution of the issue, although it carries with it a risk of being seen to be focusing on issues that don't matter to New Zealand families.
It also carries the risk of entering into a conflict with the Speaker Trevor Mallard who ultimately has more power.
But Bridges does not want to wait six months for the standing orders committee to look at the rules, nor be banned indefinitely from using clips that others, such as news media, are able to use.
It must be said at the outset that the ads featuring Government ministers and MPs without their permission are a clear breach of Parliament's standing orders – its rule book.
But the standing orders are outdated and need changing. MPs have absolute freedom of speech, access to traditional media and social media.
There is no justification for censorship in its rules which Mallard has decided to uphold. They are not new.
'A chilling move': National hits back after Speaker crackdown on attack ads
'I'm not trying to build my personal profile': Ardern on her international role
Audrey Young: Simon Bridges makes a comeback - why Labour is worried
Ironically, Bridges and shadow leader of the House Gerry Brownlee resisted moves last term to liberalise use of video footage, no doubt assuming they would be the targets of it, than the guerrillas.
The wonder this year is that Mallard didn't act sooner. He is an avid participant in social media and knows the rule book inside out.
It is inconceivable he did not know that many of National's attack ads breached the rules.
Of the 101 videos National has made this year, 28 of them have featured video clips from Parliament. And National's video production is stepping up generally.
It has made 66 in the past four months. It made only 35 in the preceding five months this year.
Mallard clearly decided to wait for a formal written complaint from Labour, perhaps because he has already been subjected to allegations from National that he is overly protective of the Government.
The Government has also clearly been reluctant to lodge a formal complain about attack ads against Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and ministers, lest it appear to be weak and seeking protection from the Speaker.
It was only when an ad featured an ordinary MP, Deborah Russell, albeit chairperson of the finance and expenditure select committee, that it seized its opportunity to formally complain.
National's videos have been an important tool in reinforcing its messages on a variety of issues including the failure of Kiwibuild, Ardern's grip on policy, roading projects and the one in question, on the so-called Wellbeing Budget.
Some have been incredibly unfair, such as the one running together clips of Ardern giving virtually the same answer in the House over several weeks - "I don't have the details" - in response to questions for which she could not reasonably have been expected to have the details.
It is authorized by Simon Bridges, as is required of all election advertising at any time (although an authorization does not automatically make it an advertisement) and has been viewed on National's Face book page more than 248,000 times.
It is the most viewed of the videos National has posted on Face Book this year.
The party occasionally pays for a boosted audience and may have for that one.
Most of the videos, however, have been fair and some of them funny.
The Deborah Russell Wellbeing ad titled "Labour's Ancient Wisdom" is both. It features the scholarly New Lynn MP explaining that the intellectual history of wellbeing goes back to the ancient Greek philosophers.
Of all of National's ads using clips from the House, it is the least didactic, but it is not credible for National to claim that it can't be deemed an advertisement because it comprises mainly clips of the MP speaking.
It is produced in such a way as to denigrate and ridicule, even if the ad lets the speech speak for itself. It may be a form over substance argument, but substance wins.
Bridges has pointed out in his letter the Speaker, however, the anomaly in which members of the public or news media could run identical footage and not be pinged. It is another good reason for the standing order to be changed.
National is not the only party to have used parliamentary clips, but it has done so more frequently in Opposition and to greater effect than any other party.
Paula Bennett has uncovered one of Bill English posted by Winston Peters in 2017 similar to the Ardern "Details Matter" video, with English as Prime Minister saying he does not have responsibility.
It doesn't fall within the scope of the Speaker's takedown ruling because it is pre-2019.
Political activist and members of the public also use parliamentary clips, and while they are not subject to Parliament's standing orders, they are not immune from the broad-ranging concept of contempt.
For example, an ad made this month by a former National Party board member, Northland farm Grant McCallum, would almost certainly fall into the category of publishing a misleading account of the House. He produced an edited clip on Twitter of Environment Minister David Parker saying over and over: "I hate farmers."
It was taken from a sentence in Question Time in which Parker said: "I hate farmers Jacqui Dean says."
Mallard had several options, once he received the complaint from Labour whip Kieran McAnulty, that may not have inflamed National.
He could have left National's videos in place while referring the matter to the privileges committee to make a recommendation.
He could have referred it with some urgency to the standing orders committee for review.
The Speaker now has a bigger challenge to respond to, defiance and disobedience.