Similarly, long-time National loyalist and Bridges' supporter Liam Hehir wrote on his Patreon blog that as a result of all the speculation, Luxon "has acquired an air of inevitability about him" – see: Christopher Luxon is almost inevitable now.
According to Hehir, all the speculation is self-fulfilling: "At a certain point in politics things, like leadership talk, take on a life of their own. There is nothing more valuable than becoming the expected outcome because it greatly reduces resistance on the part of those making the decision." Furthermore, Luxon's clear ascendancy will be scaring off any other possible contenders.
Bridges was also seen to foster the rumours when he was asked about his ambitions for the top job, and he said "It's all just chatter, it's all just rumour and speculation and I support Judith Collins at this time" – see Dan Satherley's Judith Collins asks media to stop bugging Simon Bridges and Christopher Luxon about leadership ambitions. This article also reports: "Asked about his ambitions on Friday, Bridges didn't immediately rule out another tilt."
He did, however, follow this up by an attempt to be more definitive, declaring that he has no desire to take back "the worst job in New Zealand" and "I don't want to be the leader of the National Party – I don't know how many times I can say it" – see Dan Satherley's Former National leader Simon Bridges insists he doesn't want 'worst job in New Zealand' back.
Nonetheless, commentators have been very critical of the perceived ambition of Bridges and Luxon, with Heather du Plessis-Allan arguing that their openness is hurting their own party. She says that Collins needs to go before the next election, and Luxon should become leader, but this should happen cleanly and without the current intrigue – see: Judith Collins is right to tell Simon Bridges to pull his head in.
Here's her key point: "They are cementing the impression that National is a cot case, a party with smell of disarray this strongly about it will not be elected to government. The best outcome for National is that Collins quietly hands over to Luxon at some stage, not during the disruption that the pair is causing. So Collins is right to tell them to pull in their heads: for their own sakes if they want to be successful when they have a go at an election."
Du Plessis-Allan followed this column up on Sunday, saying that all the leadership rumours are overshadowing the few wins and solid work being done on issues like housing and MIQ deficiencies – see: The return of Simon Bridges (paywalled).
Once again, in this column the case is made that Collins will need to go, and there is logic in a Luxon/Bridges leadership combo: "It'd be a unity ticket. Luxon would be seen as a peacemaker, Bridges would bring his political instinct." However, Bridges' display of disloyalty and Luxon's clear inexperience makes this all questionable.
Luxon's lack of hits is especially notable for du Plessis-Allan: "He hasn't scored any political wins of note. He doesn't appear to have even asked a question in the House yet. It's not as if he's short of fodder. He's got the local government portfolio, and councils around the country are in disarray, running out of money and running down their infrastructure."
Fellow Newstalk ZB broadcaster Mike Hosking is even more dismissive of Luxon's track record: "Luxon might be a genius – but we don't know that, because he has barely unpacked his lunch box … Just turning up isn't a qualification. If the Nats have decided it is, then they deserve everything that's coming to them" – see: National need to cool their jets when it comes to the leadership. Hosking's advice to National is "patience, my friends", because "a few months after an election is not a time to panic and roll people".
The ill-timing of a leadership change is also discussed by Ben Thomas, who says Luxon and Bridges will be wary of taking on the leadership too early: "Both men are ambitious, and aware of the dangers of getting what you've always wanted but at the wrong time. Would it be better to take a shot at the country's most popular politician, Jacinda Ardern, in the 2023 election, or swoop into the leadership after a loss?" – see: Nats must seize opportunities as cracks show in Labour's competence.
Thomas also stresses how "destabilising" the leadership change talk is for the party, and doubts that either of the supposed challenges are likely to be "a saviour". Bridges is viewed as disloyal, while "Luxon has been dubbed 'the new John Key' but, with a CV of business accolades, adoration from the lay party membership and no record of political experience or achievement, at the moment he sounds more like the 'last Todd Muller'."
These leadership issues are clearly making the already fractious atmosphere in the National caucus even worse it seems. Newsroom's Jo Moir has been talking to various unnamed National MPs, who have been pointing out just how poisonous things are at the moment – see: National's six months in a leaky boat. The key quote from one MP, about the various leadership spills of last year, is: "When poison gets into the system it takes a while to get it out."
Other interesting quotes include: nothing would change "until some in the caucus work out they're not the leader and are never going to be again", and "We won't be in government in two-and-a-half years' time if we carry on like this". In terms of the timing of a leadership change, Moir reports "the consensus seems to be that it is too early for those sorts of conversations and a more suitable time would be later this year or next."
National's more substantive problems
Former National Party staffer Matthew Hooton has written a "letter to old friends" in the form of a column in the Herald that warns the party to focus less on the leadership question and more on what the party stands for. Of course, he also issues a necessary disclaimer, due to his own involvement in supporting the Todd Muller leadership change: "Having imprudently got myself involved in National's leadership shenanigans last year, its supporters may doubt my judgment" – see: My message to National – and how to avoid another leadership fiasco (paywalled).
Hooton's paywalled column is a must-read on the state of the National Party. There are scathing critiques of the current players, of course. Bridges' recent statements are described as "vandalous" (if intentional) or "incompetent" (if accidental). Luxon's attempts to be John Key 2.0 are lampooned as futile and pathetic, with the advice that he should develop "his own political brand and skills. And those will need to be as different from Key as Key was from Brash, or Jim Bolger from Robert Muldoon. Prime Ministers don't get elected because they remind voters of their predecessors."
Collins is subtlely painted as hollow (as she has turned out to have a "much less stable ideological framework and policy roadmap than assumed. It makes her not quite true to brand.") But she should stay in the job for now, Hooton says, because to have Luxon take over "just six months after he entered Parliament would open National up to further ridicule, and risk another failed leadership".
The problems are bigger than the fact that National lacks any obvious leader. Hooton argues the party is in a worse position than in other recent times: "The party is in much worse shape than in 1985 or 2003. Back then it had at least achieved outstanding intakes in 1981 and 1984, with more to follow in 1987. In 2002, three future leaders joined its team — Brash, Key and Collins — and more talent was on its way in 2005. At the same time, MPs had their heads down, thinking seriously about the sort of party National needed to become."
He paints a picture of a party that is simply not up to the task of rebuilding and working out what it should stand for, contrasting the current MPs to those of the past who were capable of intellectual self-critique: "No such debate is possible in today's National because, with some exceptions, the MPs the party sends to Wellington lack the life experience, background knowledge, intellectual resources, personal inclination and social networks to even have them. They have no idea what a post-Key National Party might look like, or even why that issue needs to be addressed. They are preoccupied with themselves and events in Parliament, oblivious that no one cares. They do not know how to think about a problem, spend the necessary months deeply engaging with those working on or affected by it, reviewing ideas about how to tackle it, and then designing an effective and hopefully popular way to fix it. Mostly, their policy gets bashed out a day or so before it is announced, or is just picked up from some Wellington industry group."
None of this is likely to change, Hooton says, because of the inherent arrogance of those in the caucus: "They nevertheless remain very sure of their own cachet in society, especially in their local Koru Club. They are correct that Jacinda Ardern's Government is comically incompetent, but inexplicably think they are equipped to do better."
Hooton isn't the only one saying that National needs to focus on the substance rather than the style. Peter Dunne has recently argued that National needs to sort out what it stands for before it thinks about leadership.
Here's Dunne's key point: "Is it a traditional liberal/conservative party as it was in its recent successful heyday, or is morphing into something else? A hard-line law and order party of religious and moral conservatives? Or just a paler version of the modern Labour Party? At the moment, National is showing at different times and to different audiences contradictory signs of trying to be all of these things, leaving its message looking confused, constrained, and half-baked."
Earlier in the year, Dunne wrote something similar, focusing on National's political history as "an awkward amalgam of rural conservatives and urban liberals", suggesting that this winning combination has fallen apart – see: National needs to know what it stands for. Part of the problem is an influx of a new element: "Its liberals and conservatives are still there but have been joined in recent years by a new strain, the evangelical Christians, which is shaking the previous comfortable urban/rural, liberal/conservative partnership."
Conservative political commentator Monique Poirier has also been pondering what the National Party now stands for, and is critical of National's lack of policy or differentiation from Labour – see: National must prove it is ready to govern again. She says the answer is for the party to focus on creating new policy (a "blueprint"), because "without a plan, you don't deserve to be in government."
Plus, having a solid policy programme "would show the public that National was once again a credible alternative. Secondly, it would actually be able to reap the rewards (once elected) of seeing the results of major policy much earlier in its term." However, she adds that the new programme "needs to be one that can withstand a leadership change. Policy shouldn't be decided on a whim based on who is leader at the time".
Finally, for a satirical overview of the recent history of a party searching for a way forward, see my new blog post, Cartoons about the National Party since the election.
• Dr Bryce Edwards is political analyst in residence at Victoria University of Wellington. He is the director of the Democracy Project.
This article has be republished under a Creative Commons CC BY-ND 4.0 licence.
