The states of John Key – Quantum uncertainty

Written By: - Date published: 9:56 am, July 24th, 2010 - 41 comments
Categories: john key - Tags:

This series by guest poster Blue has a look at John Key now that we know a bit more about him.

Back in July 2008, the New Zealand Herald published an ‘unauthorized biography‘ of John Key, the man who was likely to become Prime Minister. At the time, it was a tough ask being in Opposition is nothing like being in Government. A person only really reveals their character once they are in the top job, with the pressure on them day in and day out.

The Government and the National Party are bigger than just one person, of course, even if he is the leader. But for many people the National Party is John Key. He’s the reason they cast their vote for National at the last election, and his personal popularity is what’s holding up the opinion polls.

He served a very important function for National at the last election he was essentially a blank canvas. Not much was known about him because he’d only been in politics a short time, and a party leader for an even shorter time. He seemed agreeable enough, and that blank canvas allowed people to project their own hopes onto him. He could literally be anything anyone wanted him to be and as long as he wasn’t Helen Clark, that was enough for some.

Our PM is also a marvel of modern physics with any issue he manages to appear to be on both sides of the fence at the same time. He is both for and against state asset sales and Maori advancement, and he makes the ‘underclass’ his top priority while giving most of the money for tax cuts to the wealthy.

As long as he remains ‘as slippery as a snake in wet grass’ as John Campbell once called him as long as no one can definitively say what he stands for and what he will do, people can continue to project their own wishes onto him. Even if his equivocation may irritate, as long as the hope is still there that he could be just what they want, they can continue to believe in him.

Now, two years on since the ‘unauthorized biography’ and about two-thirds of the way through his term as Prime Minister, it’s time to try to pin the elusive John Key down.

Blue

Series posts

The states of John Key Quantum uncertainty
The states of John Key The drivers
The states of John Key The Salesman
The states of John Key – Flexible in telling the truth

41 comments on “The states of John Key – Quantum uncertainty ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Rharn 1
    24 July 2010 at 11:40 am

    There are many epithets that could describe Key. The one that stands out the most for me is ‘liar.’

    • ZB 1.1
      24 July 2010 at 12:25 pm

      Compare and contrast, from Einstein.

      It is “society’ which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.’

      Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

      And then this statement, not Einstein.
      Bob Stephens (Institute of Policy Studies)
      Static income redistribution, and poverty relief — redistribution from the current rich to the current poor, by pensions, benefits, taxes. Postulated we will see a reduced willingness (and ability?) of younger generations, with small asset bases and large claims on them, to support people 65+ staying in work as being proposed today, with relatively substantial assets.
      http://pundit.co.nz/content/universal-pension-universally-fair

      Redistribution from the current rich??? Really, Einstein was pretty clear that the wealth was the
      accomplishment of many past and present. The very language of economic wealth is a lie.
      Key is not a liar, he is a follower using the lies both left, right, and even the centrist institutes
      use. That taxes do not belong to the rich, and aren’t taken off the rich as if we had to cap our
      hats to the rich. Geez, no wonder we never are going to debate climate, or other change,
      our media have saturated us with right wing falsehoods.

  2. Kevin Welsh 2
    24 July 2010 at 11:55 am

    As an international currency fiddler (somewhere between a lotto salesperson at Pak n Save and a blackjack dealer at a casino), he didn’t give a rats arse about New Zealand, only about lining the pockets of the wealthy. Now that he is Prime Minister, nothing has changed, only the job title.

  3. tsmithfield 3
    24 July 2010 at 12:20 pm

    Except people aren’t single atomic particles. They are capable of seeing things from different perspectives at the same time.

    Perhaps it is just the case that with many issues there are not clear black and white positions to be had in reality. There are shades of grey, pros and cons etc. It is quite possible to be for something and against something at the same time. It is just that it is necessary to weigh up the pros and cons and come out in balance on one side of the fence. It doesn’t mean that you can’t see the other side of the argument at the same time though.

    • felix 3.1
      24 July 2010 at 12:26 pm

      Cute, but it’s not a case of “seeing both sides” of an argument.

      With Key it’s a case of “I wholeheartedly believe both sides, whether I can see either of them or not”.

    • Tigger 3.2
      24 July 2010 at 12:30 pm

      You are confusing empathy with fence sitting. Key rankles because he appears to be able to see both sides. In fact he is playing both sides to effect his outcome. Smart perhaps but dishonest.

      His fudging of his Tour opinion showed that he can’t be honest about what he thinks. He wants the public to tell him what he thinks and will fence sit until then. Again this is clever but there is no moral backbone there.

      Even now what Key thinks is a mystery to me. Ultimately I wonder if he thinks or simply reacts.

    • Draco T Bastard 3.3
      24 July 2010 at 2:14 pm

      Nice defence of Jonkey’s forked tongue there TS.

  4. Pat 4
    24 July 2010 at 12:28 pm

    I think most people aren’t very ideologically driven, and can see both sides of an issue. They are more likely to be attracted to a moderate path, and less likely to be attracted to the extreme viewpoints on both sides of an issue.

    Probably explains why there are so many swing voters in NZ, happily camped somewhere near the centre of the political spectrum. And probably explains why Key’s popularity is so high, because he is a reflection of themselves.

    • felix 4.1
      24 July 2010 at 12:43 pm

      Key doesn’t take a middle path though. He definitely takes one path and then the next day he definitely takes the opposite and denies it was ever any other way.

      Like Tim, you’re trying to confuse empathy with being two-faced

      • Pat 4.1.1
        24 July 2010 at 12:59 pm

        There is always more than two paths. That’s the point you are missing. Every issue is not a fork in the road where there are only two choices.

        • felix 4.1.1.1
          24 July 2010 at 1:03 pm

          Precisely. He’ll believe whatever he needs to believe at the time. Say whatever he needs to say.

          Doesn’t matter how many possible forks there are. He’ll have you believe he’s walking them all simultaneously.

          • Pat 4.1.1.1.1
            24 July 2010 at 1:18 pm

            Nice sound-bites, but it doesn’t explain why Key takes stands on principle that are not based on popularity e.g.

            Herceptin funding – affects probably less than 100 people, and hardly a pressing election issue. But it was one of the first election promises he implemented, and has saved lives.

            Working for Families – Key has stood against the calls to dismantle this from Tory voters, well before the election.

            Anti-Smacking bill – Key has stood up for this, even in the face of an over-whelming referendum result.

            Three examples off the top of my head where Key has chosen principle over popularity. So clearly he has more substance than you give him credit for.

            • Zorr 4.1.1.1.1.1
              24 July 2010 at 1:34 pm

              Herceptin funding – done against best advice available and as a vote grabber

              Working for Families – hasn’t been dismantled because that would lose him a LOT of votes

              Anti-Smacking – what would he replace it with? How would he be painted if he was the guy who legalized beating your kids again?

              Three very poor examples of principled stands but very good examples of his weighing issues on vote counts.

            • felix 4.1.1.1.1.2
              24 July 2010 at 4:16 pm

              Zorr is right, Pat.

              All those are examples of things that according to his expressed “principles” he shouldn’t have done but did anyway for reasons of popularity.

              You’ve made the exact opposite point you intended, sorry.

              • Pat …
                24 July 2010 at 4:42 pm

                I complelely disagree that he did these “for reasons of popularity”. I think he based his decisions on what he believes was right. Which goes to support TS and Fisiani’s assertions that many on the Left still utterly fail to understand him and why the majority of Kiwi’s like him.

                I’ll leave you with the last word, felix, because that is your signiture posting style (i.e. felix had the last word so felix must be right).

                • felix …
                  24 July 2010 at 5:57 pm

                  I really don’t have anything to add, Pat.

                  The thread is already full of examples of what I’m talking about and I don’t see that you’ve questioned any of them except to say “I think not and neither does fisi so that proves it”.

                  Nothing to argue against frankly.

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  24 July 2010 at 7:24 pm

                  Pat, perhaps you could explain the principles involved in the decisions then.

                  The way I read those things are:

                  1. Herceptin. This was a highly political thing. There was an organised and well publicised group lobbying for this. John Key stepped in and arbitrarily overruled the normal process, politicising a process that had been deliberately designed to be apolitical.

                  So the principle for drug funding is now no longer left in the hands of the people charged with working out what’s best, and has been opened up to those who can best lobby through the media and play the political game. As for lives saved, you have to weigh that against what pharmac would have otherwise purchased with the funding.

                  2. Working for families, AKA ‘communism by stealth’. That was John Key’s description and I assume he meant it as a bad thing. I assume he railed against it either because he really thought it was communism by stealth, (he was reacting to the effect wff would have on the effective wage gap) or because railing against it would win make him popular with the tory base. Either way, we don’t know what he actually thinks. Either way his support for it now, if based on principle, means he was lying back then. Either way, it’s hard to discern a principle beyond ‘getting elected’.

                  3. Anti smacking. The final bill was his baby. His well sold, but meaningless, amendment allowed him to claim that the bill would not have good parents hauled before the courts. To back down would be saying he failed. Not gonna happen. Ask Worth ( who lied to key by telling him he would front up if needed with an affidavit) or Lee (who was left holding the bag, unsupported, on by-election night) how people fair that make JK look dumb.

                  But that’s how I see it. How do you see it?

                  What are these principles that you see at work?

  5. Fisiani 5
    24 July 2010 at 12:34 pm

    The Hard Left still have not figured out John Key. Let me help.
    John Key was brought up in a state house with a burning desire to work hard and do well. He applied himself to his studies and founf employment. He was very successful in business and all the people who worked with him have nothing but praise and respect for him.
    He was recruited to stand for parliament for the National Party and was seen even then as having leadership potential. He is a pragmatic optimist who genuinely wants to improve New Zealand. He is man of his word and has kept all his electoral promises. He is not afraid to change his mind and is willing to take risks and act on his gut instincts. He is not obsessed with politics and sees the job of PM as simply the application of his talents at a national level.
    Already he has turned around the economy and saved us from a decade of deficits. He has made NZ a better place to live in and a better place to raise a family. People know that we are heading in the right drection. He will probably step down after 9 years in the job and hand on the reins for the next few terms to the abundant talent in Cabinet and the back benches.
    His smile is genuine and not the strained rictus ( I do like rugby) one on Helen Clark’s face.
    He is genuinely liked and admired by most people. The two comments above are so out of touch with reality.
    If they want to be taken seriously then dialling back the hyperbole would help.

    • felix 5.1
      24 July 2010 at 12:46 pm

      After reading that verbatim regurgitation of the official John Key Story™ it’s pretty clear who hasn’t figured him out, Fizzy.

    • BLiP 5.2
      24 July 2010 at 12:47 pm

      . . . so endeth the New Testament Book Of St John. Amen.

    • Olwyn 5.3
      24 July 2010 at 1:06 pm

      Well Fisani, after that I can only assume that the Canterbury river with the twelve month moratorium on it is being reserved for the day he decides to walk on water.

    • just saying 5.4
      24 July 2010 at 1:19 pm

      I think you’ve nicely captured the “crush” factor that stops many New Zealanders from seeing Key objectively.
      I’m not talking a about sexual crush – it seems to be gender and sexual orientation neutral. And it’s not like Key is ‘hot’ (though he fancies himself like crazy).

      Do you see the irony of telling others to “dial back the hyperbole?”

    • illuminatedtiger 5.5
      24 July 2010 at 2:12 pm

      I don’t understand why people cling onto the whole state house thing in the first place. Many successful people were bought up on the poverty line but they don’t make as big a thing out of it as our Prime Minister. They do whatever it is they do and get on with their lives like everyone else.

      • felix 5.5.1
        24 July 2010 at 4:29 pm

        In fact many, many families spent time in state houses without being on the poverty line too.

        It’s only the money-hungry “aspirational” wide-boys of Key’s generation who have stigmatised the idea.

    • Redbaron77 5.6
      24 July 2010 at 2:22 pm

      Shades of perspicaciousness coming through here. Overall a very droll series of arguments presented in support of John Key’s political modus operandi. Keep it up

  7. Gooner 7
    24 July 2010 at 2:09 pm

    Fisiani is right. This post and the ensuing comments reiterate the fact the Left are mostly a bunch of jealous, nasty, bitter, inward, glass-half-empty moaners and whingers.

    Right from Williams trying to smear him with H-Fee, it continues with comments on this post, such as: “The one that stands out the most for me is ‘liar.'” and “As an international currency fiddler (somewhere between a lotto salesperson at Pak n Save and a blackjack dealer at a casino), he didn’t give a rats arse about New Zealand, only about lining the pockets of the wealthy. Now that he is Prime Minister, nothing has changed, only the job title.”

    • Draco T Bastard 7.1
      24 July 2010 at 2:20 pm

      Ah, the psychopathic projection of their own personalities onto everyone else that is the hallmark of the RWNJ.

    • BLiP 7.2
      24 July 2010 at 2:28 pm

      the Left are mostly a bunch of jealous, nasty, bitter, inward, glass-half-empty moaners and whingers.

      PROJECTION (pr-jkshn) n.

      a. The attribution of one’s own attitudes, feelings, or suppositions to others.
      b. The attribution of one’s own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.

    • felix 7.3
      24 July 2010 at 4:24 pm

      Gooner,

      You don’t have to like the tone of the comments but I notice you haven’t disputed any of the arguments raised nor defended any of the examples presented.

  8. comedy 8
    24 July 2010 at 4:41 pm

    Is this post ‘panty sniffing’ or have I got my terminology wrong – I tried to look the term up on the interweb and lost my remaining faith in humanity.

  9. Tanz 9
    24 July 2010 at 5:48 pm

    Gooner, you would defend him no matter what. Are you on National’s paryroll? Key could sell the family silver, probably wll, and you won’t care.

  10. Gooner 10
    24 July 2010 at 10:41 pm

    Tanz, I have never voted for the National Party at any election. That is with my hand on a stack of bibles.

Links to post