When Out Means In

John Armstrong's Cartoon Labour

The New Zealand Herald has named John Key Politician of the Year.

John Armstrong's piece about Key explains the decision. Armstrong paints a damning picture of the Labour Party, but so distorted is the picture that it more closely represents a cartoon than real life.

Within the deep recesses of the Labour Party and elsewhere on the left, there is a lingering arrogance saturated with an intellectual snobbery which blinds and deludes its sufferers.

The second anniversary of John Key becoming Prime Minister has been and gone. But the self-satisfied superiority and smugness exhibited by his critics continues unabated.

I'd be surprised if anyone senior within Labour is feeling self-satisfied or smug right now. Why would they, given the uninspiring polling?

They cannot bring themselves to accept that Key's occupation of Premier House follows anything but a terrible mistake on the part of voters who will come to their senses in time for next year's election.

Only the most optimistic Labour supporter believe the public will suddenly flock back to them come election time. There's an understanding that Labour has a chance in 2011, but only if ACT fails, and if National runs out of coalition partners. The equation may also require the return of Winston to Parliament. None but the most deluded in Labour believe National can be overtaken as most popular party in 2011.

The left dismisses the most popular Prime Minister in New Zealand's recent political history as Smile and Wave John Key, Do Nothing John Key and Lucky John Key.

The left's fatal error has been to constantly underrate Key in terms of ability and the fact that though he is of centre-right disposition, he is firmly at the moderate end of that broad spectrum.

Well, sure, some at the hard end of the left believe that anyone who leads National must be at the hard end of the right. However, it's pretty clear to most on the left that Key's political instincts are moderate conservative.

Key does not fit the left's mould, which assumes or even dictates that someone as wealthy as him must be an acolyte of the old New Right.

Maybe Armstrong should actually communicate with some on the left. I can't believe that moderate lefties see Key in that light.

In short, Key's critics on the left still don't get it. Maybe the Mana byelection will remove a few scales from a few eyes. It should. That result was a gruesome preview of the slaughter that may well be inflicted on Labour at the end of next year.

Pardon me, but that's bollocks. In Mana an untried and junior politician was up against someone who was well known in the electorate. He still won relatively comfortably. I fail to see the need to panic.

I'm picking that, barring a scandal, Labour probably won't drop much further in the polls. It's National that will be feeling nervous. They will unquestionably be the biggest party (again, barring a scandal) after the election, but if they don't have any coalition partners they could be in trouble. How is this not clear to someone as seasoned as Armstrong?

National's stunning performance in the byelection and stellar showings in the polls are reasons enough for according Key the title of Politician of the Year.

Ah, so it is a popularity contest. Note how Armstrong hasn't mentioned any of Key's actual achievements. I don't count winning elections as an achievement. I mean, what has he done to make the country a better place, or to make our economy sounder?

Armstrong continues:

Critics from the right bemoan Key's refusal to exploit this surplus of support and implement more radical, right-wing policies.

But his priority has been to build trust with voters so that in a second parliamentary term he can carry them with him as National tackles big-ticket items like welfare reform, the recommendations of the savings working group and possible part-privatisation of some state-owned enterprises.

Key is immovable on this. His pre-election pledge to resign if he alters the age of eligibility or the formula for paying state-funded super meant rejection of this week's moderate proposal by the Retirement Commission to raise the age of qualification to 67 by two months a year from 2020 onwards.

But even if Key privately thought the idea had merit, no way was he going back on his word.

This paints a picture of Key being a political manager, rather than a doer. It doesn't matter that the ship of state is sailing towards a bloody great iceberg, so long as the band keeps playing.

So we just have to wait until Key's second term, according to Armstrong. You would have thought that with a clear mandate from the masses in 2008 he'd have just got on with things. Why should we suddenly expect action in 2011? If Key had any political courage he might have done something bold in the first term, other than subvert our democratic processes. His refusal to budge on superannuation shows he has his head in the sand.

But nothing is taken for granted. Key's front-footedness in his handling of two national crises, the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquake and the Pike River mine explosion, flowed from ensuring sufficient back-up from Government departments.

The margin for error on such occasions is small. Helen Clark was once a day late turning up to inspect some North Island floods - too late to appease the gripes and cries of "where is the Government?".

The crises that overwhelmed Christchurch and Pike River cannot be compared with the North Island floods Armstrong is referring to. In times of great trial people rally to a leader, any leader. Look how popular George Bush was in the days after 9/11.

Armstrong then relates all of the bad things that happened to Labour this year. Yes, there's no doubt they have had a poor year. 

But things could have been worse:

Yet, if anyone comes anywhere close to Key's showing, it was Brownlee. He achieved one of the most rapid recoveries of a politician's image, first, by his adept on-the-spot handling of the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquake and then to a smaller extent by being the Government's presence on the West Coast after Pike River.

If obnoxious arrogance is a political strength then, certainly, I'd have voted for Gerry Brownlee too.

******

But who would I have chosen as Politician of the Year? It's hard to think of anyone in Parliament who deserves the title, because none of the leading political figures have inspired this year. But there are a few local body candidates: Len Brown for briefly uniting a traditionally divided region to become the first Supercity mayor, even though he was outspent almost two to one by his opponent. And for fortitude during a time of crisis either Tony Kokshoorn or Bob Parker could have been chosen.

Another politician who has had a strong year is Andrew Little. The Labour president and EPMU head doesn't present as the stereotypical "angry unionist", but instead looks to be moderate and centrist. He's been in the news a lot, firstly with the Chris Carter debacle and then over Pike River, and hasn't put a foot wrong. He looks to be future PM material, and may be in the running to be Labour leader in 2011/2012 when (as I suspect) Phil Goff steps down.

Do you have a pick?