Stuck in the Middle With You

Am I the only one that thinks that John Key is a clever bugger? (Correction: I think BustedBlonde thinks so too). I have heard a great deal over the past few days about how boring the election was and how the election was lost by Labour rather than won by National. 

No one seems to have twigged that John Key most likely knew this long ago. He has presented a bland face to New Zealand and just stood there, smiling, while Labour has attempted to demonise him with every slur it could think of. “Slippery”, “Secret Agenda”, “Can’t trust them”, ” Roger Douglas in cabinet”, “H-fees”, “Tranzrail shares” and so on. At first, I though he might be out of his depth and doing a “possum in the headlights”. But as he just stood there and took it with remarkable aplomb, it dawned on me that he knew exactly what he was doing. This was confirmed to me by the first leader’s debate where Key held his own against Clark, surely the most able politician of the past twenty years. It became obvious that he was no possum but was still the “smiling assassin” of his trader years.

So why so bland? Why so apparently spineless? I’m betting he carefully looked at the 1999, 2002 and 2005 campaigns and concluded that each time Labour had used fear of what a National government “might” do as its greatest asset. He will have (rightly) concluded that the public had “government fatigue” and that all he needed to do was allay their fear about National. Hence the bland smile, the “me too”-ism, the swallowing of dead rats and the careful exclusion of Roger Douglas. In short, John Key clearly ran a campaign based on the correct notion that Labour would fail to gain its normal fear-based traction. He was right – the gap had closed a little by election day but not enough. John Key now has his centrist government.

It is the centrist nature of National that is vital to Key’s strategy. Having done a deal with ACT and, most likely, with the Maori party, he can now formulate both right-wing and centrist policies with the assurance of support. He could say the same if he had had an absolute majority as well, but he would also know that his chances of having an absolute majority in 2011 are virtually zero. In fact, I suspect Key likes the fact that he does not have an absolute majority. He can now form alliances without members of his own party moaning about it. I laughed when I read about how Key is trying to “cobble together a government“, as if this was somehow an inherently unstable arrangement. Key made it very clear before the election exactly what kind of government he wanted – and he has got it.

I have already blogged about one of the biggest advantages of including the Maori party – that they are the most likely to achieve something good for their people, but there are other advantages for both. Gordon Cambell has used the word “bait” to describe the deal with the Maori Party and concludes that they will loose their credibility. This view assumes that National will not provide any gains for Maori which is clearly a stupid view. Frankly, it is also very insulting and patronising – implying that the “dumb natives” are about to be conned by the “whiteys” again. But then again, patronising neo-colonial gibberish is apparently a stock-in-trade of most left-wing commentators.

It should be obvious that National does not need to deal with Maori for votes. But they do need to deal so that they have a working partnership for the next election. How does this advantage Maori? Simply, Key needs to deliver real gains to the Maori people. He needs to show them he is not the devil. He also needs the Maori party to deliver him part of the Maori vote next election (by voting for the Maori party rather than Labour or National). Otherwise he will have to spend another election campaign with a smile on his face, while the mud is flying…

Related posts: