Stephen Mills from UMR Research breaks down the Key prime ministership through their long-running polls, revealing a somewhat polarising politician who didn’t quite reach the beloved status of his predecessor.

As John Key is about to leave Parliament it is timely to look at his immediate legacy. He was consistently lauded by political journalists for his high popularity. His relaxed manner, the mobbing for selfies, the National party often polling at or above 50% and his total domination of all Labour leaders after Helen Clark in preferred prime minister match-ups fed that perception.

Favourability rating

If you look, however, at his personal favourability rating which measures the perceptions of voters independent of other political leaders and parties a more nuanced picture emerges.

John Key was certainly seriously popular in his first term. His highest ever rating in UMR polls was recorded after two years on the job in December 2010 at 81% favourable; 17% unfavourable. This is a record for all political leaders in UMR surveys extending back to 1991.

But by his third term his rating, while still very respectable for a leader who had been around for a decade, were far from stellar. His low point, when his favourability and unfavourability were almost equal (50% favourable; 48% unfavourable), was recorded in March 2016.

He was edging up again as his resignation approached and his final reading of 58% favourable; 40% unfavourable was higher than his third term average.

If you look at word clouds, where those surveyed are asked to provide one word to describe John Key, the deterioration between April 2011 when the dominant description was “charismatic” and September 2016 when the dominant description was “arrogant” is obvious.

Comparison with Helen Clark

A comparison with Helen Clark is also instructive. Amazingly, the average favourability ratings in UMR surveys throughout their terms of prime minister were almost identical. Clark over nine years averaged 64% positive, 33% negative; Key over eight years averaged 64% positive; 32% negative.

Helen Clark also peaked in her first term at 77% positive,19% negative (March 2000) and her low was recorded in her last year in July 2008 at 53% positive; 46% negative. John Key did better in his first term than Helen Clark but she shaded him in the second and third terms.

John Key’s favourability rating post-resignation is now higher than it was at the time of his shock resignation. In UMR’s February 2017 survey, he is a net 17 points higher at 66% total favourable; 31% total unfavourable. This was also just higher than his overall average as prime minister. That post resignation rating is strongly polarised by vote with current National voters recording a 99% positive; 0% negative rating in contrast to other parties – Labour voters (42% positive ; 54% negative), Greens (37% positive; 58% negative) and New Zealand First voters (43% positive; 57% negative) all recording net negative ratings.

Helen Clark’s final rating as prime minister just before defeat in the 2008 election was 64% favourable, 35% unfavourable. That rating was her highest for the year. Her defeat then was probably seen as inevitable by most people polled – and suggests, as with Key, a softening in hostility when they were no longer, or soon to be no longer, prime minister.

Helen Clark’s current favourability rating (February 2017) is 78% positive; 18% negative – practically equal to the highest she ever recorded as prime minister.

One advantage that John Key enjoyed over Helen Clark was that he was never remotely challenged in preferred prime minister match ups by a Labour leader. Helen Clark, on the other hand, was overtaken by John Key. In the final media polls prior to the 2008 election John Key was ahead of Helen Clark in preferred prime minister by eight points in the Fairfax Media Nielsen poll and four points in the One News Colmar Brunton poll. The two leaders were even in the TV3 TNS poll and Key trailed marginally in the Herald Digipoll.

Rating of legacies

Direct rating of their legacies shows both John Key and Helen Clark highly rated with Helen Clark ahead. These judgements could change over time. 25 percent of New Zealanders surveyed in December last year believed history would rate  Helen Clark as ‘very great’ and a further 55% as ‘pretty good’. Equivalent numbers for John Key were 22% ‘very great’ and 48% ‘pretty good’ (this somewhat clunky scale was taken from a British survey undertaken after Tony Blair’s resignation and used then for a comparative study by UMR).Handling of Issues

Looking at the major issues John Key faced during his term as prime minister there are mixed ratings on his performance. His highest rating by far was for ‘building relationships with overseas leaders’ and he also has very good ratings for ‘managing the New Zealand economy after the global financial crisis (GFC)’ and ‘managing his cabinet’.

His lowest ratings were for the ‘housing crisis in Auckland’, ‘trying to change the New Zealand flag’ and for ‘improving the life of the very poor and disadvantaged in New Zealand’. The last was a major declared objective when he first became prime minister.

The Case for

There is strong agreement with the arguments of John Key advocates on his affability and reasonably strong agreement on the success of his pragmatism. New Zealanders were more evenly divided (a net 7% agreeing) on whether his time as prime minister showed that it was a good thing to have a highly successful businessperson running the country and a plurality rejected the idea that he had been robbed of the chance to be a truly great prime minister because he had to guide New Zealand through the aftermath of the GFC and the Christchurch earthquakes.

The case against

Testing the level of agreement with the arguments, most frequently made by his critics, showed pluralities of New Zealanders surveyed agreeing that he had no core political principles, that he was very lucky to survive scandals and he was more focused on his popularity than in taking hard decisions.

On trust, New Zealanders were evenly divided with 41% agreeing and 41% disagreeing that ‘there was something about him you could not really trust’. There was strong polarisation by vote on this count.

Dignity of office

New Zealanders, overall, do not appear to be too fussed by John Key’s sometimes unorthodox behaviour as prime minister. When given a choice of two arguments, 62% plumped for the argument that ‘John Key was a really approachable and friendly guy who was prepared to have a bit of fun in public even if it sometimes went wrong’ and 38% for the argument that ‘John Key reduced the dignity of the office of prime minister by pulling the hair of an unwilling Auckland waitress and going along with silly radio stunts like picking up the soap in the shower’.

Perhaps surprisingly the least likely demographic category to support John Key on this count was under 30-year-olds who, facing the choice between those two arguments broke 52% for ‘approachable and friendly’ and 48% for ‘reducing the dignity of the office’.

Opinion on resignation

A majority of New Zealanders also accept John Key’s explanation for his unexpected resignation. Given a choice between two arguments 62% plumped for the argument that ‘John Key’s resignation was unselfish. He said he had no more to give. That proved that he wasn’t a career politician clinging to power as long as possible’ and 38% for the counter argument that ‘John Key’s resignation was essentially a selfish act getting out while he was still quite popular and making it much harder for his own party to win the next election’.

It may be a case of ‘so far, so good’ on the wisdom of his resignation. Bill English is currently running at a higher favourability rating than John Key finished with and National’s vote appears to be holding.  The result of the September 23 election may deliver the final verdict.

[Note on methodology: most results outlined are from questions included in UMR’s fortnightly telephone omnibus survey. This is a survey of a nationally representative sample of 750 New Zealanders, 18 years plus. Some results, as specified, are from questions included in UMR’s monthly online omnibus survey. This is a survey of a nationally representative sample of 1000 New Zealanders 18 years plus.]

This content is brought to you by LifeDirect by Trade Me, where you’ll find all the top NZ insurers so you can compare deals and buy insurance then and there. You’ll also get 20% cashback when you take a life insurance policy out, so you can spend more time enjoying life and less time worrying about the things that can get in the way.

This election year, support The Spinoff Politics by using LifeDirect for your insurance. See lifedirect.co.nz/life-insurance

John Key has left the building, but not before delivering one final address. How did he go? Our experts offer their assessment of the last parliamentary appearance by the man who was New Zealand prime minister from 2008 to 2016.

Jenna Raeburn: Quintessential Key, and a rebuff to critics

John Key’s valedictory was smattered with jokes and anecdotes, but did not shy away from responding to his critics. The most common criticism of Key has been that he does not leave behind a “legacy” of major policy reform.

It would be hard to hold that view after listening to him rattle off his list of achievements: increasing benefits, supporting marriage equality, ultra-fast broadband, Treaty settlements, balancing the books – just try telling any Australian prime minister that’s “not a legacy”. Then add the Christchurch recovery, which is legacy enough for anyone.

Key also hit back at people who accuse him of not having principles, stating that his values stem from his upbringing, “rather than a Politics 101 textbook”. What a line. John Key’s principles are the values of middle New Zealand, not the frozen ideological values of a political party hierarchy. Anyone looking for an explanation for his extraordinary popularity can start there.

The speech was quintessentially Key: matter of fact, practical, engaging, funny, slightly understated, positive, pragmatic, focused on real achievements. And optimistic. The tone of the speech reflects the mood he has helped to create in this country.

No wonder Key says his legacy is leaving behind a more confident and proud New Zealand.

Jenna Raeburn is director of Barton Deakin Government Relations, New Zealand

Morgan Godfery: A contradiction to the end

Richie McCaw, the Real Housewives of Auckland, Max Key’s publicist, and the National Party are in mourning. The Rt. Hon. John Key, known to his enemies as Hon.Key, to his vanquished enemies as the Smiling Assassin, and to his admirers as Teflon John, is now former Prime Minister John Key. #BringBackJohnKey is trending in Parnell.

After eight years in power, I’m still not sure how I feel about the guy. Yeah, I still reckon he’s an enigma: the bloke you’d rather have a beer with, even though he minces down catwalks and might tug your daughter’s ponytail; the great communicator who struggles with rhetoric and oratory (though he excels in banter); and the apparently conservative Prime Minister in his eighth year of Keynesian expansion.

But how do I feel about that? Who knows. I’d love to sit at the margins, one of the love him or loathe him types. Maybe I’d fit in with the crowd who think he’s a provincial bore. The philistine who reads the literary populist John Grisham, the bougie who re-watches Rowan Atkinson’s cheap gag Johnny English, and the oaf who seems to think whatever the last person told him to.

In another, crueller world I might’ve joined a certain East Auckland set – the Kings’ old boys who think Key is an Example To Us All: the self-made millionaire, the communicator who could out-debate any Harvard-trained lawyer, and the Prime Minister to boot. What a hero. But I’m not. Sure, Key is exceptional, but he’s also mundane.

This is the contradiction at the heart of his person and politics. The contradiction means I’m ambivalent towards him as a person and politician, and maybe that’s one reason the country was ambivalent to his politics.

Morgan Godfery is a writer and trade unionist

Emma Espiner: The enthusiasm remained, but the elephant in the room ignored

What struck me (and put a positive or negative spin on this if you want) was the childlike quality John Key retained in his enthusiasm for the office of prime minister. He loved the Diplomatic Protection Squad, loved being mates with big international leaders and he loved that he got to hang out with Richie McCaw. He never learned to enunciate his vowels properly, he littered his valedictory speech with dodgy syntax and admitted to mangling everyone else’s languages when he travelled abroad. He took great joy in taking the piss out of himself and his signature three-way handshake.

Our former prime minister didn’t directly address the claims about civilian casualities in Afghanistan raised by Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson’s book Hit & Run, but he put in a big plug for our defence forces when he acknowledged the sacrifice of our military personnel killed under his watch. The elephant in the room got a terse nod, but that was about it. It made for a slightly off-centre watch. Valedictories are for the record, for posterity. They have a special character compared to other speeches in the debating chamber of parliament. A valedictory speech is lifted above the cut and thrust of day to day politics. They offer an opportunity for politicians to reflect on their legacies. But it was difficult as a viewer to put the allegations of NZ-sanctioned deaths of innocents to one side and I guess that was the point of the book launch scheduled a day before this speech.

But I’d wager that John Key will go gently and untroubled into his goodnight.

Emma Espiner is a medical student, mother and social commentator

Eric Crampton: Fine form, shame about the Christchurch remark

I normally don’t watch Parliament TV. But it’s harder to avoid it when sharing an Auckland hotel room with Oliver Hartwich. And so I caught John Key’s valedictory address.

The former prime minister was in fine form, with the folksy touch that saw him through three elections. The self-deprecating noting of national cycleways as response to the GFC was fun, and his tribute to his mother was endearing.

It would have been surprising if Key had dwelled on areas where he might have had cause to reconsider his government’s approach. His having presided over a national housing crisis was, unsurprisingly, left unmentioned. But I was particularly disappointed to hear his lauding of Gerry Brownlee’s performance in the Christchurch earthquake response. Or, more accurately, I had to stop myself from throwing things at the television. Hotel rooms don’t appreciate broken televisions. But that too is reflective of Key’s approach as prime minister: loyalty to his ministers no matter the harm they do, so long as it doesn’t touch the polling figures.

Eric Crampton is head of research, The New Zealand Initiative

Guy Williams: bit of a short list, John, but thanks for the laughs

Scripted casual!? While it was weird to hear a world leader close his final address with “It’s been a blast” like he just got off the Luge in Rotorua, I was surprised he didn’t go more off script. He told his kids “the world is your oyster” while reading from a piece of paper like he was entering the Smokefree speech competition. Key word is entering, he wouldn’t have won.

I couldn’t help but notice his list of proud achievements was very short for someone who had been in power for eight years. It was unusual to focus mainly on a cycleway (thumbs up for that thing that I defo remembered existed and use all the time); maybe he wanted to stay humble?

Despite wishing he’d gotten a teleprompter or at least had one practice go in front of the mirror I was still affected by the speech. Maybe it’s Stockholm syndrome? Thanks for the laughs John, I disagreed with a lot of things you did, I really hope you were right!

Guy Williams is a tall comedian