IN A world in turmoil, most government leaders have jobs few outsiders would covet. Yet being John Key, New Zealand’s prime minister, seems almost enviable. His is a beautiful land, far from most trouble spots. Speaking to The Economist this week, he was able to reel off a litany of cheerful economic data—growth among the fastest in the developed world, unemployment falling rapidly, wages rising faster than inflation and the budget back in surplus. And all that, he could recall, after his government took power in 2008 during a recession with the global financial crisis looming. This helped Mr Key on September 20th to win election for a third term, with his centre-right National Party becoming the first since the country adopted a system of proportional representation in 1996 to secure an absolute majority in parliament. It has only 61 seats out of 121, however, and he is still seeking a loose coalition for reassurance.

Mr Key has that rare knack—especially for an incumbent of six years—of being able to persuade voters that they can have it both ways: rapid economic growth without devastating environmental side effects; a commercial love-in with China without arousing concerns among New Zealand’s long-term security partners, especially the United States; and a prime minister who is clever enough to know what needs to be done and ruthless enough to get his own way, yet remains someone you would like to have a drink with. As years go by, however, these feats are going to be ever harder to pull off.

National’s campaign relied heavily on Mr Key’s personal appeal. Every poster for its parliamentary candidates featured him. That is why the publication as the campaign heated up of a book called “Dirty Politics” seemed so damaging. The author, Nicky Hager, accused Mr Key of having “overseen a government involved in more personal attacks and negative politics than any in living memory.” It alleged that behind Mr Key’s confident, smiling demeanour and good-bloke image lurked a vicious operation using a right-wing blogger to smear political opponents.

The scandal led to the resignation of his justice minister, Judith Collins (known in this corner of the blogosphere as “Crusher”). Yet voters seem to have shrugged it off. Asked why he thinks this is, Mr Key has a number of explanations: that they “just didn’t believe it”; that they expect “an element of rough and tumble in politics”; and that they know such tactics are not unique to his party. He concedes, however, that it is “sadly true” that people think all politicians are like that.

If Mr Key was unscathed by the furore, he may positively have benefited from an intervention in the campaign by Kim Dotcom. This Finnish-German internet tycoon poured money into a new political party and accused the government of conniving in mass surveillance under New Zealand’s “Five Eyes” intelligence partnership with America, Australia, Britain and Canada.

These two storms seem to have ruffled the press more than the electorate. Mr Key’s personal brand was strong enough to withstand them. His father died young, and his mother brought him up in relative poverty. He then made a fortune as a currency trader, and is now worth NZ$50m or $40m (“so they say”, in his words). This “back story”, he says, appeals to voters. So does a pragmatic, non-ideological approach and his lack of pomposity. Asked why he is so often described as like somebody New Zealanders know from their local rugby club, he explains it is because “my vocabulary is so poor; or my elocution is.”

Surely correctly, Mr Key argues that it is the economy that mostly determines voting behaviour. In the medium term, that might be a cause for him to worry. A surge in production has hurt prices in the important dairy industry, as have Russian sanctions against European and American suppliers. And China’s economy, the source of so much demand for New Zealand, is slowing. Even a slowing Chinese economy, Mr Key says, will generate plenty of demand—tourism from there is growing at 35% a year. He expects the rebuilding of Christchurch after the earthquake in 2011 to continue to add a percentage point or more to annual growth for the next ten years. He also believes that good regulation can deal with one big concern: that in developing its dairy, livestock and timber industries, New Zealand risks trashing the most crucial element of its own brand, namely, a pristine environment and sparkling streams. To consumers of milk-powder in China, say, the country’s clean and safe image counts.

New Zealand’s relations with China are probably better than those of any other developed country. At some point this might create tension with its Five Eyes partners. For the moment Mr Key can enjoy close ties with both America and China. He has pointed out to President Barack Obama that “sometimes there are advantages to being small.” Nobody regards New Zealand as threatening. Nor, for that matter, is it pilloried when it fails to speak out on China’s internal oppression and bullying overseas.

All-black nation

Mr Key’s popularity and success seem to be based on convincing New Zealanders that on some of the most important issues confronting them they do not have to choose. So it seems odd that one of the first acts of this pragmatic dealmaker after winning re-election was to promise a referendum on a topic he admits is not “the big issue”: the country’s flag. He wants to replace the present one incorporating Britain’s Union Jack with one based on the silver-fern motif sported by New Zealand’s rugby team. But he admits this is a 50:50 debate that will require him to invest time and “burn a little bit of political capital” among his core supporters. He insists he is a staunch constitutional monarchist, all for keeping Queen Elizabeth as head of state. Yet he seems to care about the flag, wanting one that will “scream New Zealandness”. And perhaps also one that, in a way no set of economic data ever could, will whisper to posterity: “John Key”.

Economist.com/blogs/banyan