There is nothing inevitable about Judith Collins being the next leader of the National Party.
There is also nothing inevitable about Simon Bridges lasting until the next election. Those chances are about 50:50 at present.
But it is remarkable that after having polled so dismally in last year's leadershipvote Collins is now considered the primary alternative.
And by that I don't mean in the judgment of those who have willed-on Bridges' demise since day one, despite his convincing win in the leadership contest, but by many inside the party.
Collins got barely more than three votes, those of two new conservative members, Chris Penk and Simeon Brown, and her own on the first ballot in last year's contest.
She has now entered two unsuccessful leadership contests, against Bill English in 2016 and Bridges in 2017, and two unsuccessful deputy leadership contests, both against Paula Bennett in 2016 and 2017 (Bridges also challenged Bennett for the deputy's job in 2016).
So what has happened between last year when she was completely marginalised and now?
Perhaps the more relevant question is why she did so badly last year, coming last among the four contenders at the end.
Bridges already had a head start after English resigned because he had organised so well for the dress rehearsal in 2016 for the deputy's job.
But Bridges, as a deeply conservative candidate, prompted the liberal wing of the party to rally behind a credible alternative but who could also project a modern image for the party. Amy Adams fitted the bill better than anyone and was Bridges' main rival.
Illustration / Guy Body
Adams had been a highly competent minister and did not come with the baggage Collins had acquired through the Oravida scandal, the association with dirty tricks in Nicky Hager's Dirty Politics book (later cleared by the Chisholm inquiry) and having had two resounding losses in her previous two attempts at leadership positions.
Of the other contenders, Steven Joyce was seen as part of National's past, not its future, and rank outsider Mark Mitchell dropped out at the 11th hour.
So by rights, with Adams having done so well last year and Collins so badly, the logical choice for a favourite replacement in the event of a failed leadership by Bridges would be Adams.
There are several reasons Collins has emerged as the favourite.
First, unlike Adams and Mitchell, who have been unequivocal in their support for Bridges, Collins has made it clear through a smirk here and a grin there that she still harbours leadership ambitions.
She could have killed off speculation by stating firmly she was 100 per cent behind Bridges, she had no intention of challenging him and she expected him to lead National into the next election.
Second, she has also demonstrated by example that she knows how to be an effective Opposition MP.
Those elected after 2008 will not have seen her operate in Opposition previously when she brought down a minister, David Benson-Pope, in the Clark Government.
She has been stunningly effective in exposing the weaknesses in the Government's KiwiBuild programme and undermining the standing of senior minister Phil Twyford.
It would be an indecent coup that was hatched in the recent aftermath of a mass murder that has indeed boosted the popularity of the Prime Minister and her party.
That has earned her admiration from a group that would previously not have given her a second glance.
Adams, who was the clear alternative last time, has not been nearly as effective in Opposition.
Collins has come from virtually no support last year to being the primary alternative to Bridges and for that, she deserves respect.
Collins also has an authenticity and strong profile unmatched in National.
But the risks of a damaging leadership contest and a divisive leadership are also great and she does not have majority support in the caucus.
That is just what Bridges' detractors say when they want to undermine Bridges.
It is possible that more than half of the caucus are frustrated or unhappy with Bridges but that does not translate to support for Collins or a willingness to dump Bridges yet.
Bridges himself came up with a new narrative this week, which he will no doubt be trotting out at other regional party conferences, that it is only natural, in fact fitting, that the country rally behind the Government after a national tragedy.
It was a coded plea to the party and caucus not to judge him after such an event and he has a point.
It would be an indecent coup that was hatched in the recent aftermath of a mass murder that has indeed boosted the popularity of the Prime Minister and her party.
The trouble for Collins' supporters is that they may not have a clear opportunity to act between now and the next election.
If Collins' supporters deliberately resume a destabilisation campaign to push the polls lower, they may be undermining her own support in the caucus.
There may be no catalyst to change leader if National's polls continue to come in at the low 40s.
That will not eliminate the anxiety the party could be headed to a result like 2002 – when National was also in its first term in Opposition with an unpopular leader in Bill English, who ran a dreadful campaign.
The parallels are limited, however. The difference is that back then, there were alternative parties on the centre right in Opposition, United Future and New Zealand First, which National Party support bled to. Today's landscape is quite different.
The fact National's support has stubbornly remained in the 40s despite a new Government and Prime Minister suggests there are not the conditions to replicate such a result.
But if National's party vote support continues to decline to the mid 30s and Collins is not seen as having encouraged that outcome by undermining Bridges, the leadership will almost certainly be hers by the end of the year.
