OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

The Biggest Parasite?

Entry 1065, on 2009-08-02 at 19:20:46 (Rating 4, Politics)

The recent disclosure of taxpayer funded expenses claimed by British politicians caused a lot of embarrassment and a few resignations there. Now the same process is happening in New Zealand and its beginning to look like some of our politicians should be starting to feel a bit uncomfortable as well, especially the latest victim of the process, Bill English.

I haven't seen any real evidence that anyone has actually broken the rules but it seems clear to me that English certainly hasn't worked within the spirit of them. Normally I wouldn't worry about this too much but we are constantly getting messages of how the rest of us have to economise and might have to accept job cuts. Would it not be a good example from our leaders to do the same?

On the other hand, I know that these extra benefits are part of their pay deal and that the politicians' base salaries, considering the amount of responsibility, aren't that high. Also, senior managers in the private sector get paid a lot more and waste a lot more money so what is the real difference?

At this point I expect my right-wing opponents to say something like "the private sector can pay whatever it likes because its their money". Well, believe it or not, I disagree!

When I pay for my services from the private sector (for my Vodafone cell phone use, for example) a part of that goes to the extravagant pay and extra benefits the management get. And I have no real choice because the competition are just as bad and realistically I need a cell phone to function as an IT consultant in the modern world. So really operating my cell phone is as much a compulsory charge as paying taxes.

In the bigger context I don't think I'm too worried about the politicians extravagant use of public money because (despite the common pro-business propaganda out there) the private sector are wasting my money even worse, and they steal it just as much (or worse) than any tax I have to pay.

I know that two wrongs don't make a right but I don't think its fair to single out politicians as being parasites. Sure they are, but not to the same extent as the corrupt incompetents running our big companies!

Comment 1 (2348) by SBFL on 2009-08-05 at 07:35:54: (view recent only)

OJB said "but it seems clear to me that English certainly hasn't worked within the spirit of them."

From Key backs $900-a-week subsidy for English home

"Asked what he thought New Zealanders would think, he said: 'I think most people will think politicians are paid too much, that our staff is too big, that our VIP service is too expensive, we fly around the country too much. In the end we have got a job to do. We have been voted in to do it and I operate on the same rules as everybody else. In my case I have focused on making sure my family is together and it has some stability.'"

Clearly OJB doesn't think family is that important, "not within the spirit of them [rules]"

Hat tip: BK Drinkwater

Comment 2 (2351) by OJB on 2009-08-05 at 09:50:22:

Oh so it was just to keep his family together? What a nice chap old Bill is! If a Labour politician had given you that tripe would you have accepted it so willingly? I don't think so. Come on, stop being so naive and accept this for what it is: total self centered greed.

Comment 3 (2352) by SBFL on 2009-08-05 at 11:09:57:

Not too many Labour politicians have 6 or 7 kids!

To be honest I share your sentiments that this is not a big deal. There are bigger concerns than "perks" which are essentially an extension of salary, much like in the real work environment (super, personal use of company car etc). The media like to pick up on it though, and nothing in NZ's case comes close to that of recent revelations in the UK (due to ho how system operates). Like you said, he is within his employment agreement so you would do well to play the ball, not the man.

Comment 4 (2357) by OJB on 2009-08-05 at 13:26:05:

Well, sounds like you're backing off and changing the subject here now huh? Come on. Try to be unbiased for a change. What he did is corrupt, not legally but at least morally!

Comment 5 (2358) by SBFL on 2009-08-06 at 08:40:27:

Plenty of other MP's also have dubious claims (well documented on blogs everywhere), but I tend not to worry too much about these costs (for their own pockets) because (a) it is small fry, and (b) I am not in a position to judge whether they deserve it or not.

In my previous job I did quite a bit of travelling and did not like the travelling aspect at all. Our MP's do much more than I did and I don't have children. So the rigours of the job can be taxing not just on them but also their families. Therefore my instinct is to defend Bill, but also other MP's in a similar situation.

What actually concerns me much, much more is the abuse of parliamentary funds. Mainly using funds meant for parliamentary business on what is really party business. We saw it with MP's flying into Mt Albert. And it seems the Greens and Labour are the worst, though no party is free of blame. Bryce Edwards has spent a bit of time on this issue. Here are some of his articles:

MP expenses and corruption in Mt Albert?

Parties are prevented from using parliamentary resources for electioneering

A critique of the Greens’ political finance disclosure

Comment 6 (2366) by SBFL on 2009-08-06 at 11:03:37:

Speaking of "The Biggest Parasite", to return to your original post title, I notice you have not (yet) posted on Taito Philip field, the first NZ politician to be convicted of corruption. This act (along with the Labour Party defence of him) surely dwarfs any allowance frivolities.

The warning signals were there, from David Lange no less!!
David Lange's expose of Philip Field's dodgy political finance

and

Field goes down, Lange is vindicated, English paying some of it back — NZ proved again to be the least corrupt nation, but vigilance must always be eternal

Comment 7 (2368) by OJB on 2009-08-06 at 11:36:19:

The original point of my blog entry was to say let's not blame the politicians too much because, compared with business leaders in far less critical jobs, they don't actually cost us that much. So we really agree on that.

It was really just the deliberate sneakiness of English (and others) who disguised their assets deliberately so they could get more expense payments which bugged me. Now that he is paying back the money he's more or less admitted he was wrong, hasn't he?

Not sure about Taito Philip Field. I sometimes get the impression he was acting for the best but in a naive and foolish way, and other times that he was deliberately dishonest. Despite what they say, I think it was partly a cultural thing (but that's no excuse).

As far as Labour initially defending him then attacking him after the facts became apparent, I don't see that as a major problem. I think a certain amount of loyalty is OK unless the evidence becomes overwhelming (which it did).

Comment 8 (2370) by SBFL on 2009-08-06 at 12:14:58:

Not at all, actually none of my comments referred to business leaders. Again, I ask you, please do not put false words in my mouth. This is quite different to my reasons for not hassling politicians on this matter too much.

Indeed, English has - by his recent action to pay it back - made an admission that he overstepped the mark. The fact he (maybe at Key's urging) has reacted so quickly has to be commended, no? Especially in contrast to the previous government which defended internal (and NZ First) wrongdoing to the death (and death they got in Nov-08).

Re Taito Philip Field - yes I would scrutinise the facts further to get past you initial naivity.

Re Labour and Field. You are so wrong. You are in fact almost (trying to) rewrite history. The facts were CLEAR once the Noel Ingram investigation report came out. Labour only attacked him after he indicated he may stand against Labour in the 2008 election. The details of this are currently being plastered all over blogosphere.

I love how you think loyalty is more important than corruption. Compare Labour's response to that of ACT and Donna Awatere Huata. Yes the facts needs to be made clear, but (a) where there is doubt investigate, don't defend, and (b) when the facts are clear, purge, don't defend for political benefit. Labour failed on both counts.

Comment 9 (2372) by OJB on 2009-08-06 at 12:34:40:

But we do agree that the amounts involved aren't worth making a big fuss about. I justified this by comparing it with the wasteful spending of business leaders although I'm sure you would have had a different reason!

The way you see it they can do no wrong. If he could have continued to get away with it he would have. He has just been embarrassed (or coerced) into making the repayment. He is corrupt (not legally but morally).

If I am naive then so are several commentators which was where I got the idea from. I have lost interest in the case and haven't really been following it. If what I said is untrue based on the facts (the real facts, not just the opinions of right-wing bloggers) then I accept that.

I don't see a lot of difference between the different party's responses. Labour did defend him a bit too long but I don't see that as being inherently different than the action other parties have taken in similar situations.

Comment 10 (2374) by SBFL on 2009-08-06 at 13:30:00:

"But we do agree that the amounts involved aren't worth making a big fuss about." - yes indeed, and yes our comparative justifications are quite different.

Most right-wing commentators have condemned English with that housing allowance. For me I have been a bit more reserved considering my own experience with travelling on the job. Anyway, saying "they can do no wrong" is quite contrary to my point. I am more keen on parties correcting their wrongs expediently, not dwelling on defending them. In the case of English the wrong has been righted pretty quickly (in contrast to the previous regime). Do you deny this?

Oh for goodness sake. Read the papers then! If you support Taito Philip Field then his fan club just doubled! (and you should not diminish Lange's comments without good reason!)

Your last paragraph only shows that you will defend Labour through thick and thin - to your shame. Why not purge the bad eggs and focus on getting your team credible? TPF was the first NZ politician to be convicted of corruption. FACT. I never recalled ACT ever defending DAH nor the Alliance defending Alamein Kopu once the misdemeanours were known. You seem party to Labour's shame. OJB - I think you are better than that.

Comment 11 (2377) by OJB on 2009-08-06 at 13:49:30:

OK, so point 1 is settled.

My point was that the wrong wasn't righted because it was the right thing to do, it was partly righted because of public pressure after the PM initially defended the action. If the pressure hadn't been kept up I'm sure nothing would have happened. As it transpired it has been partly fixed fairly quickly but let's see how this government is in a few more years!

I don't support Field at all, and that wasn't really part of this blog entry. I just noted that some commentators (not his fan club) had mentioned that possibility. No big deal to me one way or the other.

Labour are not "my team" and I can't remember ever voting for them. Just because I point out that they are unfairly criticised by their opponents doesn't mean I strongly support them.

Comment 12 (2378) by SBFL on 2009-08-06 at 20:42:55:

Actually it was the voluntary release of expense and allowance information that prompted this.

I also wonder how the behaviour will be once this govt forgets the mistakes of the last one and starts to get a bit more comfy. Hopefully to maintains its integrity for a long term (maybe even avoiding thirdtermitis). The rising influence of bloggers will help keep a check on that I trust.

"Labour are not "my team"" - so you keep saying, and yet you keep sticking up for them. Really it doesn't matter if you are a member or not, nor if you voted for them. As long as you keep going in to bat for them, I will be there to set the record straight!!

Comment 13 (2379) by OJB on 2009-08-06 at 22:34:21:

Huh? Initially they just said it was OK and only later did English decide to repay some of the money. He knew he was manipulating the rules for his own advantage. I consider that pretty corrupt, you don't. I guess we'll just have to leave it there.

Well this government is already starting to look a bit arrogant, especially the PM.

On this occasion you brought up the subject of Labour, I guess to try to shift the focus away from Bill English and his dodgy friends! However I do welcome your opinions - even though i rarely agree with them!

Comment 14 (2380) by SBFL on 2009-08-08 at 10:19:54:

I was not talking about the repayment, but the publishing of the data in the first place. It was voluntary (by parliament). At the end of the day it is a good thing, transparency always is.

If having a jibe at some 19 know-it-all is what you call arrogant, I can't even imagine what you thought of the last government!!

Reminds me of an Oscar Wilde quote "I'm not young enough to know everything".

As you said, the discussion on Bill is done. But your topic was also about "troughers". How about this one, even warned by his own party mates!!
Colleagues cautioned Carter on expenses

Comment 15 (2383) by OJB on 2009-08-08 at 16:36:34:

So its OK to reject the opinion of someone who is young enough without any good reason or serious consideration? Sounds like you're just applying uneven standards again. We both agree the previous government had got that way after 9 years. We were discussing the early signs of this government. Do two wrongs make a right?

I think Carter spent far too much on travel but it was within the rules and only for work purposes. Also he didn't use dirty tricks to extract more money like English did. And, aren't some people claiming that National are better than Labour in that regard? Apparently not!

Comment 16 (2385) by SBFL on 2009-08-08 at 23:30:16:

Looks like you lost your sense of humour.

Oh dear, out with the rhetoric again. So far the numbers have only come out for 2008 and 2009. I would love to see the Labour party ministers numbers going back pre-2008. It isn't interesting that Carter only talks about his expenses when he was a minister as some way to justify it, but conveniently omits any details of his equally bad spending for the time as an oppostion MP. Seems like he was reluctant to give up the flamboyant lifestyle!!

Comment 17 (2387) by OJB on 2009-08-09 at 12:12:58:

I agree there is justification for some criticism for spending while in opposition (although a case could be made that that is also needed) and after retiring from politics. But I still think English has been more dishonest by disguising his assets in a trust so that he can extract a payment he doesn't need.

Also, at the very best, you could say National is just as bad as Labour. Is that all they aspire to?

Comment 18 (2389) by SBFL on 2009-08-12 at 09:34:31:

You seem to focus on person A being less worse than person B as some sort of justification for the left wing troughers. This is not a debate I will bother with.

I also wouldn't stereotype to say National is as bad as Labour, but would say that people from both parties have some explaining to do (I'm much more concerned over parliamentary spending). As I said earlier, I am not as enraged as others over the recent disclosure of MP's expenses, I would say more of it is justified than what the media would have us believe. Sometimes some reasonable consideration needs to be given before the headlines are pre-written by those seeking to emulate that UK blogger. In my view, the same approach applies to the recent circus over the provocation defence. Level heads are called for.

Comment 19 (2391) by OJB on 2009-08-12 at 09:53:32:

Many people would say that politics is all about choosing the least bad option. I'm not justifying anything with anything else, it was you who attempted to do that by mentioning the Labour people to start with!

I have also stated that I'm not overly concerned with this issue. That was one of the points of the original post. So we actually agree there! I would say the big, important issues are often ignored when these trendy "easy to sell" issues are followed by the media (both traditional and bloggers) instead.

Comment 20 (2396) by SBFL on 2009-08-12 at 10:52:21:

No, I was just implying it was unfair to pick on Bill alone!

Yes I know, but you persevered in the comments!
"I would say the big, important issues are often ignored..." - yes, such is human nature unfortunately. It's up to the grassroots/decent bloggers to set it right though!

Comment 21 (2399) by OJB on 2009-08-12 at 11:13:55:

Agreed. It is unfair to pick on Bill, but he was the most senior person who was manipulating the rules most obviously. I agree that others are also worthy of criticism, but maybe not to the same degree.

Grassroots and bloggers aren't influential with many areas of society so we still do depend on traditional media as well, unfortunately.

Comment 22 (2401) by SBFL on 2009-08-12 at 11:35:12:

Carter was a minister longer than Bill has been. Phil Goff is another senior politician with some questions to answer I guess. I don't think degrees of criticism need to based on seniority though.

I think you would be surprised at the influence at some bloggers theseadays. I see them referred to more and more often in the media (and the mainstream media are really their competition!).

Comment 23 (2404) by OJB on 2009-08-12 at 12:19:50:

Well I've already pointed out why I find English's behaviour so bad so I can't see a lot of point in going any further on that one.

I guess the influence of bloggers is a hard thing to evaluate. I get the impression that for people who don't use the internet a lot they may not even know what a blog is. Of course, there could be an indirect influence they aren't aware of.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.