Mr Nice Guy?

What is it about John Key?

What is his “big secret”? Why is it that, right from the very first moment when we first heard of him, he has been a favourite darling of a majority of the NZ voting public?

I can vaguely recall when I first saw mention of his name in the media. It must have been when he arrived back in NZ, in time for the 2002 election, freshly head-hunted by the National Party, lured back home from his stellar career in London at the very top of his money-market dealer profession. Persuaded to come back home and start over as a novice politician, albeit with the promise of a flying start with a guaranteed safe seat earmarked for him, plus a strong indication that they saw in him future party leadership potential.

I recall wondering “Who is this guy? Never heard of him.” A similar thought must have occurred to many others around this time also.

And then, once he entered Parliament, representing that safe National seat of Helensville, I recall the media interest in him, partly because he had already been unofficially anointed as a future leader of the party, and partly because of his unusual background, and the fact that he was definitely not your typical “career politician”.

In fact, I believe, it is his status as a relative “outsider” that partly drives his popularity. Many people are sick of the same old slick “political animals” who inhabit the House and the Beehive: the Helen Clarks, the Nick Smiths and the Phil Goffs.

You know the ones…. They became politically active at a very young age, often while still at high school, they joined the youth section of the party, they were active in politics while at university, they studied politics and law at university, they maybe worked for a time as a parliamentary researcher, or for a union, they entered Parliament at a young age, they never had any other job out in the “real world” outside of politics.

Many people are turned off by that kind of politician, and I can understand why. Somehow, those kind of politicians are often just a little too “slick”, a little bit too much “politically committed”, a little bit too much one-dimensional in their loyalty to their party. It turns many of the average voters off.

John Key is different. For starters, as mentioned above, he is not a “professional politician”, and this shows in the way he behaves. He comes across as straightforward, honest and sincere.

He successfully projects an image that says “I am currently here in this job because I genuinely wish to do the right thing for my country. I don’t really care much about politics for the sake of politics. Power and influence and making more money does not interest me. I already have plenty of money, so I am not in this for the salary. I had plenty of power, influence and satisfaction in my previous job, and I came here because I genuinely wish to help, because lots of people told me that I had something unique to offer my country.

“I am not interested in the old politics of the left and the right. That old duality belongs to history, to earlier centuries. I believe in the “new politics” of the twenty-first century. A new form of genuine consensus politics, where everybody works together for the common good. I see my role as being the facilitator of this “new politics”, bringing a diverse range of people together, for the common good.”

John might not have ever actually said this, but it is, I believe, a summing up of his personal political philosophy, even if unstated out loud.

And, the key thing is (pardon the terrible pun!), a lot of people believe him. A lot of the ordinary NZ voters buy into his basic message.

And, why not? He is obviously sincere in his own personal belief in his philosophy. It show, it is obvious.

Also, when he is faced with the difficult challenges of national tragedies, and there have been plenty….  the Pike River Mine disaster, the earthquakes, the casualties in Afghanistan, he has always come through as a straight-forward, straight-talking, honest and empathetic leader. His handling of each of these national tragedies has been superb.

Some of his political opponents, and the more cynical of the media, have sometimes more-or-less accused him of using these occasions to further his own popularity, by way of “favourable photo opportunities” and “sound bites”, but the average NZ public does not buy into this, he comes across as being so genuine, that they believe in him.

Any efforts by the likes of the Labour Party to criticise or adversely comment on this aspect of our PM have always rebounded on the people making the comments, as being attempts at political point-scoring and also as being mean-spirited.

It must be terribly frustrating for the Labour Party politicians, to be up against “Smiling John”. Contrast this with the field-day they had against Don Brash, when he was National Party leader, and made so many gaffs! Remember the walking of the plank!

There is something about politics, and public life in general. People get type-cast, into a certain type of mould. Past examples include David Lange as the clever orator (which he was) and also as the “defender of the poor and downtrodden”. Muldoon as the big bully (which he certainly was), and poor old Bill Rowling as “the mouse”, which he actually was not, but the label stuck, and he was doomed.

John Key has been extremely fortunate in that his type-casting has been mainly favourable, and his opponents have been unable to turn it around. They have tried very hard to do so. Labour politicians like Mallard have tried their best to re-align John’s image into that of the “smiling assassin”. They have attacked his personal integrity, they have hinted that he was involved in some dirty business during his currency-trading career.

But, apart from hard-core Labour supporters, the public are having none of it.

So, what is the image that the average Kiwi voter has of Smiling John?

I would sum it up as “local average bloke, made good”. By his own efforts. He was born poor, his mother was a widow, he grew up in a state-house, but he went out into the big wide world and became a very successful self-made man. In short, a modern-day fairy tale, with a happy ending. And, who can resist such a story, especially if it is one hundred percent true.

To many people, he embodies the kind of self-made success story that they themselves would love to aspire to. “There, but for the roll of fortune’s dice, goes I. That could just as easily be me.”

People identify with him. They do not identify with Phil Goff, Helen Clark, or even Bill English. Those professional politicians seem almost “alien” to many people, a breed apart, career politicians with their noses in the trough, and people resent them for that. “Who do they think they are? With all their airs and graces, they look down on us common folk.”

But not smiling John, he looks down on nobody. He is one of us, made good.

Can Labour do anything about all of this? Can they come up with a game-changing plan?

Probably not. These things move in natural cycles, just like National could not do anything to change the game in 1987, or in 2002, nor Labour in 1993. There is the simple fact that, in a three-year election cycle, it is really hard to throw out a first-term government after only three years.

There is also the sour taste of the “Clark legacy”. By 2008, too many voters came to resent “Queen Helen”, and they turned on her in decisive numbers. Many of them have not gotten over this yet.

Also, in the present case, there is the “Mr Nice Guy” factor, for the reasons that I have outlined above, and it would take a shift of monumental proportions to change this public perception of “Mr Nice Guy”.