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 21st 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 21st 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
The Two Faces Of National
The 2005 general election was perhaps the most polarising and divisive in New Zealand’s history. Voters were presented with two vastly different visions for New Zealand’s future, promoting the contrasting ideologies that underlie National and Labour Party politics. During the election these ideologies were manifested in the policies of each party, perhaps more so than ever before, and vigorously promoted by their members. It is thus very surprising that in little over 15 months since assuming the National Party leadership, and on the rare occasions when he actually remembers what his party’s policies are, John Key seems to be indicating that that ideology has changed.
Key’s bid to bring National policy towards the left and thus make it more appealing to the electorate has seen the adoption of many Labour policies from the 2005 election, and the consequent neutralisation of a number of difficult policy areas. Kiwi Saver, Working for Families, interest free student loans, employment law, nuclear free and climate change are just some of the areas where National has back-tracked in recent times, and Key has been quick to distance his National from that of Don Brash. Opinion polls have suggested that this so-called “new” National has found favour with voters, but can such a dramatic change in core party beliefs be possible in such a short space of time or is National presenting an artificial image to the public?
The answer to that question is perhaps made most apparent in Key’s maiden speech as Leader of the Opposition. In it Key made much of New Zealand’s so-called “underclass”, yet he was the architect of National’s proposed election tax cuts of $10b which, according to the Ministry of Social Development, would have seen child poverty increase by 18-percent by 2007, and which he had been rigorously advocating for just over a year earlier. It is certainly difficult to reconcile these two positions, and the overwhelming inference is that Key’s overtures to the “underclass” were simply a disingenuous attempt to win votes. Similarly, National’s approach to Maori issues has softened, so much so that a coalition with the Maori Party is not being completely ruled out, and the definite deadline for settling historical Treaty grievances, a major driver of party support leading up to 2005, is, as of yesterday, no longer that definite.
Of course, National did gain a number of new MPs in 2005, and Key has been quick to present them as the new, younger, “fresh” face of the “government in waiting”. But the vast majority of National MPs were in Parliament long before 2005. They were the engineers of National’s divisive policies. They were the ones who fought hard to sell them to the electorate, and some of them are still there on the front bench. It is hard to see how any changes in core National Party beliefs and a consequential shift to the left could occur while the McCully’s and Williamson’s of the party still help direct party policy. All of this would seem to suggest that while National presents a very popular centrist visage to the populous, behind that is an ever-present right-wing agenda.
If the National Party has, as John Key claims, undergone a change of direction then one of two conclusions can be made. Either National MPs didn’t actually believe in the policies they promoted in 2005 and simply towed the party line, or their beliefs and convictions are weak and easily changed. Either way, it is worrying that such personalities could be in government post-election 2008.
Powered by Qumana
