Perspective with Heather du Plessis-Allan: Luxon's corporate speak is not a big deal

The latest thing that isn't a big deal but will have a big deal made of it - because it's the Prime Minister - is that Chris Luxon has called us voters 'customers'.

He did it in a sit down interview where he was asked about being seen as out of touch, and he was saying he was because he talks to people all the time. He said -“It’s been a belief system of mine, talk to the customer, to the public, to the people and the voters."

At which point the interviewer basically told him to ditch the corporate speak.

I don’t have a problem with this, do you? This is not a big deal.

When I was at university studying postgrad politics, we often referred to voters as stakeholders. As in stakeholders in the Government of the day. That's a corporate term, that's not unusual.

It's also not unusual to see voters in a transactional relationship with a political party. If anything, it's actually not a bad thing for politicians to see us as customers - customers who will only come back for more from a political party if we get what we want.

Policies that we like, promises that are delivered and not broken, and so on.

What's the problem for a voter in that? You vote for a party, you get what you want. That is arguably the opposite of what the last Labour Government was doing pretty much the entire time on, for example, crime.

We kept saying, as customers - we don’t like what we’re getting, can you go harder on the gangs?

And they kept responding with - you’re imagining it, you're wrong, we're going hard on the gangs.

They might have had a better showing at the last election if they remembered the mantra- the customer’s always right. And many ‘customers’ didn’t come back for more.

Also, Luxon needs to stop apologising for the corporate speak.

Bringing a corporate approach is part of some of the best stuff that he’s done - and doing. His quarterly targets for the Government, managing the various parts of the coalition, trying to get efficiencies out of the public service...he's a manager, he just needs to lean into it.

Yes, sometimes you want less transaction and more principle in politics, but ultimately - Luxon's onto something.

He's a guy selling us a product and his product is the National Party. We are the customers and we want what we want out of the National Party. Being seen as customers is not a bad thing.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Forgever do for ce Ellen. Okay. The latest thing that
isn't really a big deal but probably will have a
big deal made out of it because it's the Prime minister,
is that Chris Luxen has called us voters customers. Now.
He did it in an interview, a sit down interview,
where he was asked about being seen as out of touch,
and he was saying basically, no, no, I'm in touch
because I talk to people all the time. It's been

(00:22):
a belief system of mine. Talk to the customer, to
the public, to the people, to the voters, at which
point the interviewer was like, whoa, you used the C
word customer. Oh, you got to ditch that corporate speak,
don't you. Now, I don't have a problem with being
called a customer, do you? I mean, but I think
this is a big deal. When I was at university
studying postgrad politics, we often refer to voters as stakeholders,
as in stakeholders in the government of the day, and

(00:45):
that's corporate term, right, That's not unusual. It's also really
not unusual to see voters in a transactional relationship with
a political party, as in, I give you my vote,
you give me something back which I want, which is
a policy or whatever, if anything. Actually, it's not a
bad thing for politicians to see us as customers, customers
who will only come back for more from what you're

(01:05):
selling if you give us what we want, policies that
we like, promises that are delivered, not broken, and so
on and so on. What's the problem for a voter
and that that's awesome. You vote for a party, you
get what you want. That is arguably the opposite of
what the last labor government. Just by contrast, I just
want to draw contrast for you. It's the opposite of
what the last labor government was doing the entire time on,
for example, crime. We kept saying, as the customers, hey,

(01:28):
can you just you know, like go a little bit
harder on the gangs, and they kept saying, no, you're wrong,
you're not imagining it. We are going there's no crime.
We're going out on gangs. And so in the end
what happened is the customers we bug it off, didn't
we They would have had a better showing at the
last election if they remembered the mantra the customers always right.
So a whole bunch of customers didn't come back for
more at the last election. Now, also, while we're on

(01:48):
the subject, Luxon needs to stop apologizing for corporate speech
he brings. I mean, some of the best stuff that
he is doing at the moment is when he brings
a corporate approach to it. It says, quarterly targets for
the government, managing the various factions in the coalition, effectively
trying to get efficiencies out of the public service. Here's
a manager. He's good at being a manager. He needs
to lean into that. Yep. Sometimes obviously you're going to

(02:11):
want less transaction and more principle in politics. But ultimately
Luxn's onto something here. Here's a guy selling us a product.
His product is the National Party. We are customers. We
want what we want out of the National Party or
who Weather is selling us their policies, and being seen
as customers is not altogether a bad thing. For more
from Heather Duplessy Allen Drive. Listen live to news talks

(02:33):
they'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.