Has Key just insulted 1,058,638 National voters?


As was predicted, Key’s response  to voter turnout to the asset sales referendum has been dismissive and derisory,


PM playing down voter turnout - 13.12.13



TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

With “only” 1,297,281 voting papers returned,  Key was obviously unimpressed,

Well the numbers don’t look like they’re that significant. I mean at the moment it’s sitting at around about 40 per cent.

Key added that the number was ” not absolutely amazing, it’s not overwhelmingly opposed“.

Considering that 1,058,638 people voted for National in 2011, does that also mean that Key is dismissive of National’s electoral support in 2011 as “ the numbers don’t look like they’re that significant“; “not absolutely amazing“; and not “overwhelmingly opposed ” to the Labour Party’s anti-asset election campaign?


electoral result 2011



Because from where I stand, 238,643 more people participated in the  asset sales referendum  than voted for National, two years ago.

I’m sure 1,058,638 National voters would be unimpressed at the suggestion that they “don’t look like they’re that significant “.

That’s the trouble when a Prime Minister casually describes nearly a quarter of the country’s population as not “significant”. That’s a lot of people to dismiss out of hand.

And a lot of aggrieved voters.





Wikipedia: 2011 Election results

Fairfax media: PM playing down voter turnout



= fs =


  1. The Thing I would be worried about If I was Mr Key is it is showing a lack of support for him and his government.

    Everyone seems to point out that only 43.9% of eligible voters voted or that only a certain % opposed it. What is more shocking in my view and if Keys supports actually supported him then they simply would of voted yes as a sign of support but yet less than 15% of all eligible voters voted for it. Not exactly a sign of support for the government.

    I think it sends a clear message. Start cleaning up your ideas Mr Key and Listen to what the public say or you will be gone this time next year

  2. Key is suffering from a condition. In turn the people of New Zealand will suffer the results of his deluded decision making .
    The “condition” is psychological in nature it is called “hubris”.
    dictionary.com explains it simply as …
    “huris…excessive pride or self-confidence; arrogance. ”

    wkipedia explains like this …
    “Hubris (/ˈhjuːbrɪs/, also hybris, from ancient Greek ὕβρις), means extreme pride or arrogance. Hubris often indicates a loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one’s own competence, accomplishments or capabilities, especially when the person exhibiting it is in a position of power. The adjectival form of the noun hubris is “hubristic”.

    Also from wikipedia this is worth reading …
    “Modern usage

    In its modern usage, hubris denotes overconfident pride and arrogance. Hubris is often associated with a lack of humility, though not always with the lack of knowledge. Those accused of hubris often come from higher social backgrounds, such as politicians or wealthy celebrities, than the accuser, who accuses them of having marginal experience with the realities of the topics they attempt to address. An accusation of hubris often implies that suffering or punishment will follow, similar to the occasional pairing of hubris and nemesis in Greek society. The proverb “pride goeth (goes) before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall” (from the biblical Book of Proverbs, 16:18) is thought to sum up the modern use of hubris. It is also referred to as “pride that blinds”, as it often causes one accused of hubris to act in foolish ways that belie common sense. In other words, the modern definition may be thought of as, “that pride that goes just before the fall”. More recently, in his two-volume biography of Adolf Hitler, historian Ian Kershaw uses both ‘hubris’ and ‘nemesis’ as titles. The first volume, Hubris,[5] describes Hitler’s early life and rise to power. The second, Nemesis,[6] gives details of Hitler’s role in the Second World War, and concludes with his fall and suicide in 1945.

    Examples of hubris are often found in fiction, most famously in Paradise Lost, John Milton’s depiction of the biblical Lucifer. Victor in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein manifests hubris in his attempt to become a great scientist by causing life through technological means, but eventually regrets this previous desire. Marlowe’s play Doctor Faustus portrays the eponymous character as a scholar whose arrogance and pride compel him to sign a deal with the Devil, and retain his haughtiness until his death and damnation, despite the fact that he could easily have repented had he chosen to do so.

    An example of hubris in modern public life is given by Sir David Omand, former head of GCHQ, who defended the closeness of Britain’s intelligence relationship with the US, telling BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “We have the brains. They have the money. It’s a collaboration that’s worked very well.”[7]”

    So we clearly are victims of a man and his hubris ,both National voters and all others.


    • I think you’ll find it’s less about Hubris, and more about the decision makers behind the scenes, using DonKey as their puppet to turn New Zealand into another Obama type Dictator state.
      Dig a little deeper people…

  3. I wonder how we can keep Mr Key’s opinion about small numbers firmly in front of insignificant National supporters across the year.

    Many of the ‘small’ national voters do seem to be the sort who love to nourish a grievance or a slight. Shall we help them to feed their pets?

    Why waste such an excellent put-down?

    • How does this CIR result compare against previous results in terms of turnout and the actual number of people supporting the cause?

      All I see from this one is a rather small turnout that returned a result similar to the anti-National vote at the last election in 2011. There is no indication that National has lost a significant section of their supporter base so why would the Government worry?

Comments are closed.