I'm going to start this column off with a prediction for 2016. It’s not a very bold prediction. In fact it’s pretty much as safe as you can get in the unpredictable world of politics:
At some point this year, John Key is going to say something really dumb and/or offensive.
It may be a bad attempt at a joke, like his “Gay red shirt” comment. It may be a political attack gone too far, like his “You support THE RAPISTS!” outcry. Or it may be some completely weird story about his personal life, like his personal affinity for pulling the ponytails of young girls.
Whatever it ends up being, the result is fairly predictable. It will cause a small media storm, left wingers will be baying for his head, Mike Hosking will jump to defend his honour, and your news feed be full of indignant outrage from your annoying friends.
And it won’t make a lick of difference. His polling will remain unchanged. Anyone expecting the Key legacy to be destroyed by a mildly offensive gaffe is going to be sorely disappointed.
There are two key reasons why this is.
Firstly, swing voters don’t pay attention to gaffes. Here’s the thing: the only people really intently following political news in non-election years are, bizzarely enough, people that care about politics. And if you’re the kind of person that cares about political news, you are probably also going to be an individual with pretty well-developed political opinions. The kind of opinions that aren’t easily swayed by gaffes. A left-winger that doesn’t like John Key is only going to have his opinion reinforced, and a right winger isn’t going to rethink his entire philosophy based on something relatively minor. However, the swing voters that could go either way? They aren’t paying attention at all. Because they aren’t the kind of people who follow every political news story. Its 2016, man. They’ve got better things to do.
Secondly, scandals don’t have the same impact on incumbents. Political scandals matter when they colour the public’s perception of a candidate to the point that their judgement and basic ability to govern is called into question. Mitt Romney’s “47%” comment made him seem like a heartless autocrat and Rick Perry’s “Oops” moment made him seem like a blundering idiot.
But those stumbles don’t incite the same doubts in the public when they come from an incumbent, because people have already seen them in action and had time to form an opinion. If they’re governing well and the economy is strong, the public can be extremely forgiving. That’s why Bill Clinton could survive the Lewinsky affair with 70% approval ratings, but one photo of Ed Milliband looking weird while eating a sandwich was enough to end his career.
Holding out hope that John Key will go down in flames in his own personal Watergate is an exercise in futility. The next election will be decided the way elections have been decided for centuries, with two simple questions: How well are the current guys handling things (specifically the economy)? And can the other guys do it better? We’ll just have to wait and see what the answer is.