Entry 2329, on 2024-03-04 at 21:27:37 (Rating 2, Comments)
There are certain things which are technically legal and within the rules but are still quite reasonably thought of as bad. Sometimes they can even be justified by looking logically at the benefits against the drawbacks. But even then, they are usually still bad.
This particularly applies in politics, where perceptions are often more important than reality, so politicians and other public figures need to be particularly aware of this. By now, if you live in New Zealand, you might already know of an example of this phenomenon. Yes, it our new prime minister and the payments he accepted to pay for his accomodation in our capital city, Wellington.
The PM is already pretty rich, having been, amongst other things, CEO of our national airline, and he is being well paid as prime minister too. He owns seven houses, and one is worth almost $8 million, so he's not short of cash.
And one of the major policy directions of his government is saving money by cutting back on existing services and downsizing government departments. So you might think at this point that he might want to set an example by saving the taxpayer a bit on what we pay for his accomodation.
But apparently not.
He initially accepted a payment of $1000 per week to pay for accomodation in Wellington - in an apartment he owns. Was he entitled to this? Yes. Do other politicians accept similar payments? Yes. Was it within the rules and not illegal in any way? Yes. Should he have done it? No.
It really is a bad look. How can you respect a person who tells everyone else to save money for the benefit of the country yet accepts a payment himself which he doesn't really need? You really can't. And the fact that he is now repaying it shows he at least accepts his error, or maybe he is just trying to make the best of a bad situation.
Note that I did vote for a party (Act) which is part of the government that the PM leads, and I don't necessarily think he is a bad prime minister, although so far I certainly don't think he's a good one either. To be fair, I can't think of any good ones, so that doesn't necessarily mean much!
You might say that $52,000 to allow a good leader to live in the center of government of the country could easily result in that being paid back many times over if he does a good job, but that's not really the point. As I said above, it's about perceptions, and the fact that he didn't even think of that shows he is either politically naive (he's quite new to politics so that's a fair explanation) of very entitled (also possible, considering his senior management positions).
I also have to say that this is a very common problem.
Maybe the greatest demonstration of a total inability to understand how their actions are perceived is the people who attend climate conferences. Large numbers of private jets (400 of them in the most recent one, see my blog post titled "No More Leaders" from 2021-11-11) fly from all over the world, emitting a lot of carbon into the atmosphere, to a conference aimed at reducing the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere.
Again, it's possible that if the conference is successful the amount of atmospheric carbon saved might be a lot more than the amount released by the jets of the leaders at the meeting, but again that's not the point. If the elites are asking the rest of us to make sacrifices to save the climate (let's not even get started about whether climate change is real or not) then it's hard to take them seriously when they won't make sacrifices themselves.
It might be legal. It might be practical. But it's a still a bad look.
A good summation - very fairly and accurately assessed.
As a long standing member of the centre-right I can readily submit that Luxon, from the beginning, has shown an absolute dearth of "political aptitude" and displayed almost complete unawareness of what the political side of his job entails and the matters/issues that might impact upon it. For a man of his means to claim "entitlement" was always going to register adversely against him, and it's quite incredible to me that at no time did it do so. That he then had to fall back and reverse his former, emphatically-presented stance, only made him look and even bigger and weaker, money-hungry twit.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2024-03-06 at 11:00:09:
Yes, he often comes across as being politically naive, but I guess he has been in politics a lot less than others, so maybe we should give him a chance to improve. He has been accepted by many because they were just so happy to get rid of Labour, but that won't last forever.
Comment 3 by Jim Cable on 2024-03-06 at 11:31:07:
Since parliament reopened, both Peters in particular and Seymour have appeared to be the spine of the coalition. Peters' performance as acting PM has been measurably above that of Luxon, virtually slaying the idiot-poseur types who've attempted to get smart at the governing parties.
To me, Luxon simply hasn't got it - and lack of experience in political life simply doesn't cut it. The guy upfront is going to be the target - didn't his original backers know that? He's far too soft and uncommitted to any ideal that I can see.
How on earth did he make it as Leader?
Comment 4 by OJB on 2024-03-06 at 15:51:12:
Yes, I agree with that, except I think Seymour is more the de facto leader than Peters. Not saying Winston hasn't been doing a great job! :) As far as how did Luxon get the role? Well, maybe that tells you a lot about the depth of talent in the National Party, although it's probably even worse in Labour.
Comment 5 by Dad on 2024-03-06 at 17:54:00:
Yes it is a shame that Luxon did not decline the payment immediately and possibly obtain plaudits from the media for his decision. Although if he had I doubt the existing media would have even reported on the matter.
Also he was entitled to the payment whether we agree with that or not, and it is possible as part of his employment entitlements it was paid automatically without him even being aware of it. Also by using his own apartment he does lose the income it may have generated so he is immediately out of pocket.
I see you are quoting a figure of $1,000 weekly. I would not know whether that is correct or not, but if it is this would only amount to about $13,000 having been paid before it was questioned. I wonder how many other members of any party are being paid a housing allowance which while being paid legally could be questioned over moral issues.
Owen could you make your check number a little easier to unravel. I find it difficult even with my glasses.
Comment 6 by OJB on 2024-03-06 at 19:36:17:
Yes, I suspect if he had refused the payment from the beginning there would not be a lot of positive news about that in our biased media, but lack of bad news is almost as good!
Yes, I accept he was entitled to it, and I said that in my post. But this word "entitled" has a lot of extra baggage associated with it today, and it is a bad look, whatever else is true. I'm pretty sure the number I quoted is right, and he has repaid about $13000. Many other politicians accept the payment, but in every case I have seen, it is considerably less.
I will look at improving those numbers. They can be a bit difficult to see!
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE
