John Key: Humble Beginnings?

Phil Heatly has inadvertently pointed out some of the disingenuousness in John Key’s claims that he grew up in a state house. National’s housing spokesperson expressed outrage last week after a Housing New Zealand Select Committee revealed some state housing tenants were earning more than $100k. Without further information on these households, such as number of dependents, one is in no position to judge whether or not they are in need of state housing. But it does say one thing; not all those who use state housing can be lumped in the same basket. Indeed, Key’s upbringing in a state house couldn’t be further from the impoverished “underclass” he professes to relate to.

John Key, and certainly National, have made much of his so-called “humble” beginnings, portraying Key as the embodiment of the legendary “kiwi battler” who rose from rags to riches with nothing but a little self-determination and hard work. This certainly fits well with National Party ideology that every New Zealander is born with equal opportunities; it’s what you do with them that makes the difference. Hardly a speech goes by where Key doesn’t make mention of his state house beginnings, and it is often rolled out to soften the hard edges of National Party policy. In fact, John Key himself has said of his upbringing in a state house:

“I look at it as a great marketing ploy for me”

And an effective marketing ploy it has been. National Party governments have contributed greatly to New Zealand’s “underclass”. Welfare cuts and implementation of market-related rents in the 1990s did a lot of damage to New Zealand’s most deprived, and National has generally been viewed as a party without a heart. But John Key has unscrupulously used his background to soften that image by creating, albeit duplicitously, a connection between his own life and that faced by the “underclass”. The overall aim here is to win support from those traditionally opposed to National, and therefore make it easier to sell policies that could affect them in a negative way. After all, if John Key could go from “state house to statesman” then why can’t they?

But are the similarities really there? The answer to that question is a definitive ‘no’. While National would have us all believe that Key had the same upbringing as those living in Otara or Canon’s Creek, the reality is that state housing in 1970’s Christchurch was a world away from 21^st century McGehan Close. In fact it would be more correct to say that John Key grew up in a house that just happened to be owned by the State. Key’s state housing experience should be confined to the 1970s, and not extrapolated into the 21^st century, because there is simply no comparison whatsoever between Key’s upbringing and the lives of New Zealand’s “underclass”. Key’s upbringing was emphatically middle-class.

Key grew up in a business owning family, which afforded him all of the advantages and opportunities that go with owning a business. Key was not born into a life of poverty and disparity. His parents were educated people experienced in the world of business, and this was so even when Key was living in a state house. To say that this is in anyway comparable to today’s underclass would be deceitful indeed, and Key’s persistence in trying to convince the impoverished that he is actually one of them is particularly heartless.

While Key, like J-Lo, may like to believe and have us believe that he is simply “Johnny from the block” who used to have a little and now has quite a lot, the irrefutable truth is that Key never grew up on “the block”.  In the past, Key has said that it annoys the Left that he grew up in a state house. Perhaps the more truthful representation of the Left’s opinion on this is they despise the cruel way he pretends to empathise with the deprived, all the while planning to implement policies that will make their lives significantly worse.

 

Powered by Qumana