Love for Key dying in middle NZ

Written By: - Date published: 11:54 am, February 14th, 2010 - 50 comments
Categories: john key, national/act government - Tags:

Matt McCarten asks “are we still in love?” with John Key after a year of do-nothing government and a promised ‘step change’ that is really just favours for National’s rich mates. If the views of people on McGehan Close, Key’s famous ‘underclass’ street are anything to go by, the answer is increasingly ‘no’. A lot of these people on low and middle incomes were suckered into voting National by Key, and they’re angry as hell about it:

Joan Nathan: “How many promises has he stuck to? I got warned. My family told me. They say `you voted him in, all this bullshit we’re going through, it’s your fault’.”…

…Factory worker Chandra Kumar who voted for National. “I thought he [Key] might bring in good change, but all those promises were lies.”…

…”His biggest mistake was coming here,” says social worker Vince Tuisamoa. “It will be his Achilles heel. He’s used the street, this is the street he names all the time and yet the street is still the same, we haven’t got anything.

He promised tax relief, but the only people he’s given it to is the top people. He offered jobs, but what jobs has he given? It’s like waiting for Santa Claus, but he doesn’t come.”…

…Key said the Zhous were exactly the kind of people National wanted to help, and talked about plans to help state house tenants buy their homes. Zhou voted for National at the 2008 election…[but] Zhou says nothing much has changed for him under a National government. He fears being made redundant as the economic crisis has affected his business, and believes National’s policies have benefited the rich. Planned tax changes announced last week, including a possible raising of GST to 15%, only add to that feeling…

…”What’s he done? Nothing,” was a common refrain.

Nothing, for the people whom he promised a brighter future.

I’m reminded of this exchange on Sunrise the other day:

Matt McCarten: [Key’s ‘plan’] is for his constituency. What he’s determined is that the poor don’t vote for him anyway

Duncan Garner: I reckon some poor people did actually vote for John Key…

Carly Flynn :… and they won’t next time

50 comments on “Love for Key dying in middle NZ ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. greenfly 1
    14 February 2010 at 12:24 pm

    He fooled them once … he’ll fool them again.

    • r0b 1.1
      14 February 2010 at 12:38 pm

      History suggests you might be right, but then, the world has changed a fair bit since the last time we were faced with re-electing a first term government. I’m seeing the same sort of comments that McCarten reports a fair bit on online forums…

    • r0b 2.1
      14 February 2010 at 12:34 pm

      They had that ridiculous banner up on the front page when the total number of votes cast was around 200. Slow news day or what? Anyway, I voted for Rodney, just for fun.

  3. illuminatedtiger 3
    14 February 2010 at 1:32 pm

    Looks like the media are finally laying into our stupid and incompetent Prime Minister. Better late than never!

  4. the sprout 4
    14 February 2010 at 1:40 pm

    Well now who would have ever thought that transnational corporations like our msm might not actually be 4th Estate watchdogs on powerful corporate interests after all

  5. Ian 5
    14 February 2010 at 1:50 pm

    No comment yet from kiwiteen. Amazing (and nice).

  6. gobsmacked 6
    14 February 2010 at 1:57 pm

    I wonder which story the media will pick up today:

    1) John Key is revealed (on Q & A) to have a personal financial interest in an Australian uranium mining company … that’s our pro-mining, nuclear-free Prime Minister, serving New Zealand and the public interest.

    2) John Key is sooo sexy.

    Tough choice, eh.

    • Draco T Bastard 6.1
      14 February 2010 at 2:13 pm

      I suspect you’ll find that JK and a lot of NACT people have interests in mining and other areas where he’s promised NZs wealth for SFA.

  7. tc 7
    14 February 2010 at 2:10 pm

    Key was never going to last but there’s no Plan B….geez there’s simply no plan period which’s peeing their own side off….priceless !

    Had the MSM done their job in 2008 rather than what their political ideology dictated we wouldn’t be in this mess now with this slash n burn bunch of born to rules.

    This is classic consumerism 21st century situation……never mind the history, check out this shiny new model we got now…all re-engineered and fit for purpose see it even dresses up and acts a clown….awww cute.

  8. Fisiani 8
    14 February 2010 at 2:42 pm

    3 malcontents are quoted as not liking Key. These must be the famous MANY. Part of the mere 6.8% of people who prefer Phil Goff as PM.
    What a scoop. Keep it up!

    • Blue 8.1
      14 February 2010 at 2:58 pm

      We’ll see how the next opinion poll goes. I bet the next one that surveys people after JK’s ‘Big Tuesday’ speech will show a significant drop in support for him.

      Having kept the property investors sweet won’t save him from the ire of the many who don’t want GST to go up, or the mistrust of voters who know they’ve been lied to.

      JK convinced a lot of turkeys to vote for an early Christmas last election. He may find it more difficult to do so next time around.

      • Tigger 8.1.1
        14 February 2010 at 10:15 pm

        Fisi – these things don’t just transform overnight. Key has hoodwinked a bunch of people and it will take time for them to realise that he’s not there for them, he’s there for him and his mates. It won’t happen overnight…but it will happen.

        • Fisiani 8.1.1.1
          14 February 2010 at 10:49 pm

          Tigger or should it be Peter Pan

          I do believe in fairies.
          I do believe in fairies.

          Wishful thinking might bring back Tinkerbell but not Labour.
          Leave the dark side and come with the MANY to the light

  9. Herodotus 9
    14 February 2010 at 3:17 pm

    So there is an attack on Key for what. Filling a vacum that was there by Labour, some may say he has filled the vacum with another vacum ( I am sure there is a science nut out there to tell me that you cannot fill a vacum with another!) and still there is nothing from Labour, all I have seen is a poor Green response to the economy. At least they floated something. We are about 1/2 way thru this term so where is the flaoting of anything from Lab, they will not even come out and say that if GST is hiked they will reverse this.
    I do not have to “fall in love” with JK or H1, but please give me some reason to vote for anyone I dont want a reason Not to vote for A or B. Unless Lab cannot give it to me, by default someone else will get it. I want something constructive
    “Zhou says nothing much has changed for him under a National government.” So Nats have NOT made it worse for him. With all this negativity towards Nat govt they are as bad as the previous lot, interesting….

    • Draco T Bastard 9.1
      14 February 2010 at 3:29 pm

      So Nats have NOT made it worse for him.

      But for the other 100k or so people where it really is worse for them?

      • Herodotus 9.1.1
        14 February 2010 at 4:24 pm

        What hope was the for the same people under Labour?
        They did do some minimal work for those living under the poverty line, and min wage. Yet min wage as has been commented only pegged along at the 90’s level, and those 150k odd people unemployed did not benefit from WFF. Given the richness of the 99-08 period there should have been more done in my oponion by the so called savours of the poor, yet this was not done to a level that a so called left leaning party should have achieved. Many were let done by the same people that you are now telling us are our savours. Please do not treat us as fools, or are those ardent supporters so blinded that they cannot see the deficiencies of policy pushed by lab?

        • mickysavage 9.1.1.1
          14 February 2010 at 4:26 pm

          What about lowest unemployment rate in the western world, about half what it is now. Not to mention vastly increased spend in education and health.

          Sheesh.

          • Fisiani 9.1.1.1.1
            14 February 2010 at 8:20 pm

            Increased spend in health and education yet less operations than before, worse health statistics. and 20% leaving school unable to read and write.
            Just because Labour writes a cheque they cannot project manage

            • mickysavage 9.1.1.1.1.1
              14 February 2010 at 8:58 pm

              Increased spend in health and education yet less operations than before, worse health statistics

              Worse health statistics because we are older and more affluent. Way, way more operations, check your statistics. Ryall talks about “elective” operations, these are just a subset of everything that happens.

              20% leaving school unable to read and write.

              Literacy has been increasing over the past decade. Check your statistics.

              Just because Labour writes a cheque they cannot project manage

              So hand everything over to project managers??

            • Matt 9.1.1.1.1.2
              15 February 2010 at 6:21 am

              Health improved vastly – we actually gained approx 3 years of life expectancy under Labour and the average level of health improved – plus health inequalities (both absoloute and relative) decreased in that time – an indicator of much broader societal health and wellbeing. Less operations my arse – about the same amount of ‘elective’ operations – if you judge your health system on the number of elective operations you really are missing the whole point – our health system became more efficient, better run and more responsive to the health issues we faced.

              Your comment re worse health statistics is just wrong, do some research into information that doesn’t come to you via the National Party Research Unit.

              • Herodotus …
                15 February 2010 at 3:57 pm

                I am amazed at such a direct correlation, I think that to link health spending and life expectatncy is a bit of a streach over the last 9 years, so in 5-20 yrs time when obesity has taken hold of the health dollar it will be who ever is in power at the time their fault ?????
                Matt I am sure you will take this in your stride, but the comment is a bit shallow.

        • Marty G 9.1.1.2
          14 February 2010 at 7:30 pm

          There are 168,000 unemployed now. There were 70,000 under Labour.

          The best thing a government can do is get people into work. And Labour succeeded in that beyond expectations (English called unemployment under 6% a ‘hoax’)

          • mike 9.1.1.2.1
            14 February 2010 at 7:37 pm

            “There are 168,000 unemployed now. There were 70,000 under Labour”

            Marty – pathetic effort. How does the same comparison apply to Obama V Bush?

          • RRTAB 9.1.1.2.2
            14 February 2010 at 7:40 pm

            Bullshit. Ever heard of global recession, dick?

            [lprent: Smells like a stupid troll. BTW: Ever hear about not promising massive unfundable taxcuts when heading into a recession – dickhead. ]

            • b 9.1.1.2.2.1
              14 February 2010 at 8:19 pm

              How do you explain unemployment going way down after labour got in? There was no global recession in the 90s was there?

          • Herodotus 9.1.1.2.3
            14 February 2010 at 7:51 pm

            Was not the base level of those without jobs 150k (Now 250+k)? No matter what stats we all use it is still a sad day that so much potential is/was left as just that untapped potential. Most of what happens for this country I think is in spite of what if anything a govt does.

            • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1.2.3.1
              14 February 2010 at 8:16 pm

              Given the richness of the 99-08 period there should have been more done in my oponion by the so called savours of the poor, yet this was not done to a level that a so called left leaning party should have achieved.

              More should have been done but Labour still has a list to the right from the 1980s. It’s only since the recession that they seem to have steered a bit more left.

              Most of what happens for this country I think is in spite of what if anything a govt does.

              I tend to agree with you there but Labour did have plans to help people through the recession which NACT didn’t and still don’t.

    • ParkDrive 9.2
      14 February 2010 at 5:32 pm

      captcha: nonsenses… sounds like a keyism.

      Labour will not support an increase in GST. While it is a bow to draw to say that Labour will reverse it once they get the Treasury Benches, it’s illogical to say they wont.

  10. johnbt 10
    14 February 2010 at 5:34 pm

    Now, if you had actually read the article you would have noted that over half was about an engineer and his dental nurse wife who have three cars, including a Merc, and were offered the opportunity to buy a state owned house. This is an excellent National policy to help people buy their own homes and free up state houses but this guy declined for bullshit reasons. He is better off sucking off the taxpayer tit.

    Then there was the lady who has has her home tarted up as part of a $125 million plan to catch up on all the “deferred” maintenance of state houses which resulted in 1,000 new jobs. Also, less graffiti, a new footbridge, more cops around and the gangs appear to have moved to Helensville.

    You boys really need to get out a bit more, but, if you want to make a difference you could try calling Steven Zhou and ask him why he is rorting the system.

    • Marty G 10.1
      14 February 2010 at 7:25 pm

      The guy was declined. He wanted to buy the house but it’s semi-detached and HNZ isn’t selling those ones.

      I agree he should look at moving out since his income is clearly sufficient now.

      But remember, the point of state housing is meant to be to give a place for people to get on to his feet, and it has done that for him. He was obviously on a lower income when he moved in or he wouldn’t have been able to apply successfully.

  11. b 11
    14 February 2010 at 7:13 pm

    Actually I am one of the people who became a lot better off under labour. About 160 p/w better off. Went from not being able to support my family ( ie not enough left for food after rent & bills ) to being able to cover expenses due to wff. Since National got in i have lost about 50 p/w which used to pay for petrol & train fares to get to uni ( training incentive scrapped). Back to really struggling but still not as bad as b4 labour.

    I agree zhou seems like a whinger tho – wtf is he doing wth a state house wth a mercedes!!! The waiting list for state houses are almost in the thousands in auckland. Give them to people who need them.

    • RRTAB 11.1
      14 February 2010 at 7:31 pm

      Funny how after nine years of labour, Zhou expects the government to provide everything for him.

  12. RRTAB 12
    14 February 2010 at 7:31 pm

    Mcgehan close isn’t middle new zealand, idiot. Get out some more. McCarten isn’t a middle new zealand commentator either.

  13. aj 13
    14 February 2010 at 7:33 pm

    Get the word ‘mercedes’ out of your heads. Older higher mileage mercs are cheap as. We know nothing about the age of the car.

    • RRTAB 13.1
      14 February 2010 at 7:38 pm

      Three cars isn’t poor aj. If you can afford to maintain an old merc, you’re not poor either. They’re on two incomes and they don’t need to be in a state house.

  14. b 14
    14 February 2010 at 7:39 pm

    Maybe Zhou is supposed to represent “middle nz” as he is family man trying to buy house etc etc Hes pretty useless if he cant get a deposit together if he has enough to afford 3 cars and with both of them working. Maybe hes got some priorities wrong

    • RRTAB 14.1
      14 February 2010 at 7:41 pm

      I don’t know where immigrants get off coming to New Zealand expecting welfare. I wonder how that happened. Oh yes because we had a labour government for a decade. Thanks helen, you’ve done us proud.

      [lprent: Looks like troll left over from 2007. Repeating mindless lines without engaging brain. Suggest that troll examines the policy page because a few more dickhead statements without backing them up with something more than a stupid assertion and off topic for the post and I’ll feed it to the spam queue.

      In the meantime you can go into moderation to see if you can clean up your act. ]

      • b 14.1.1
        14 February 2010 at 7:49 pm

        Just because some people take advantage of welfare doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be there. btw as rents r income related for state houses someone on a good income would be paying market rates. However i think once someone can afford market rent they perhaps should have to move out of state houses

  15. mike 15
    14 February 2010 at 7:41 pm

    FFS McCarten can coment on middle NZ about as freely as Michael Hill

  16. Olwyn 16
    14 February 2010 at 10:08 pm

    Everyone is happily reinventing Mr Zhou’s life on the basis of a handful of details, some of which may even be facts. To begin with, state housing is not emergency housing, and in fact National in the nineties charged market rents and encouraged tenants who could afford such rents. Mr Zhou may be understandably reluctant to uproot his family from schools and a community in which they have made some connections. To think this way is not to be lazy or passive, but rather to concern yourself with the long term good of your family. And all this howling about 3 cars – the flotsam and jetsam of consumer junk do not necessarily amount to wealth.

    • b 16.1
      14 February 2010 at 10:34 pm

      Obviously Zhou is entitled to stay in a state house as long as he wants as that is govt policy at the moment. However the question is it good policy to allow this? As I said before waiting lists for state houses in Auckland are huge. Even if you count only the people who are classed as being in desperate need of a state house (category A) its around 100. Wouldn’t it be better if state houses were kept for people who are in need of them?

      As for uprooting your family, if someone is paying market rent in a state house it stands to reason they can afford a similar house in the same area. No one is suggesting they must move out of the community, change schools etc. Its not that hard to find rental property.

      Wealth is subjective, but two incomes, 3 cars – If I had that I certainly wouldnt be complaining to a sunday paper…

  17. Olwyn 17
    14 February 2010 at 10:58 pm

    I think it is good policy for families to have genuine stability of dwelling, however this is achieved. And I am assuming that the SST sought out Mr Zhou rather than the reverse. In fact Mr Zhou expressed a wish to buy a house; he is having to do a rethink because he is unable to buy the house he is living in. It is true that they do seem to have two incomes, but it is also true that non-rich people do sometimes end up with two or three close-to-worthless cars. To be honest, I just get sick to death of NZers pecking at each other relentlessly like a flock of pigeons.

    • b 17.1
      14 February 2010 at 11:05 pm

      If families having stability of dwelling is achieved at the expense of desperate people needing a roof over their head I disagree.(that its good policy)

      • Olwyn 17.1.1
        14 February 2010 at 11:16 pm

        If stability of dwelling were taken seriously as policy, we would no longer have desperate people needing a roof over their heads. After all, Michael Joseph Savage and his team managed to achieve this back in the day.

        • b 17.1.1.1
          14 February 2010 at 11:32 pm

          We obviously need more state houses then. Also ‘a reasonable standard of living for all’ (googled mjs lol)