The Taxpayers’ Union-Curia poll on Monday showed Labour leader Chris Hipkins had just overtaken Luxon as preferred Prime Minister
Hot off the launch of the Everyone Must Go tourism campaign in Australia, PM Christopher Luxon set out his pitch to get billionaire investors here: New Zealand – a survival bunker for your billions.
In setting out his slate for foreign investment at the href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/national-embraces-donald-trumps-former-deputy-chief-of-staff-chris-liddell-as-government-mulls-auckland-harbour-crossing-options/LS5GHXOQE5E6BEYYCZWD2V5RMU/" target="_blank">Investment Summit, both Luxon and Finance Minister Nicola Willis portrayed the country’s usual handicap of isolation as a strength during a period of global turbulence.
Luxon noted New Zealand was “a very attractive destination for anyone looking to take shelter from the global storm”.
Out came the claims of backbench MPs with furrowed brows and uncorroborated sightings of the dusty abacus being hauled out to start doing the numbers.
It is a weird turn of events that whispering and speculation is around the Prime Minister in a first-term government, rather than the Opposition leader who delivered a dire election result.
However, at this stage, questions about the stability of Luxon’s leadership were nothing more than questions, despite unsuccessful bids to fish out disgruntled backbenchers.
Believe me, when there is actual discontent and instability in a caucus with a backbench the size of National’s, it becomes very obvious very quickly.
The Taxpayers’ Union-Curia poll had Luxon’s ranking as preferred PM slipping once more to fall beneath Labour leader Chris Hipkins for the first time since Luxon took over as PM.
Beyond that, the most interesting point in the poll was the drop for the Act Party, which was barely commented on because of Luxon’s result.
The consolation for National MPs was in the small bump in National’s party support, meaning it was now further away from the threshold of dread: the sub-30% mark. That it appears to have been at the expense of Act will quietly please them too.
The gap in the Curia poll was similar to Labour’s most recent internal polling, which had National at about 31 and Labour at 35. National has trailed Labour in that poll – and others – since the start of the year.
One poll is nothing, but the trouble is that every poll this year has been tough for National and Luxon. It is shaping up to be a white-knuckle year in which the party has to try to hold its nerve.
Such polling is always going to kick off speculation about how long Luxon’s caucus would keep him on.
Many of those speculating are his political rivals and some are in the media, but Luxon also has a number of unimpressed sceptics in the wider National Party.
The diagnoses of Luxon’s problems also started flowing: it was his corporate-speak, he was floundering to answer simple questions, he was being overshadowed/shouted down/distracted/outplayed by his coalition partners.
He is not the first PM to have a bad interview and he will not be the last.
However, when you are not doing well in the polls, slip-ups are magnified. Interviews like that take on greater significance. They reinforce people’s views about whether a leader is likeable, capable, up to the job.
Every fresh poll that has similar results will kick it off again.
There is no doubt backbenchers – and ministers – will be nervous about the polls. There is some bafflement about why the public do not see Luxon the way they do, and why he cannot get traction.
It is a perilous thing for any caucus being overtaken by its main rivals, let alone consistently beaten.
The reason there is no clear and present danger to Luxon is in the word “stability”.
After the rollercoaster of Opposition, the more senior National MPs are very aware of the price that comes with rolling a leader, especially if that leader is Prime Minister.
There is also the fact National is the senior partner in a coalition with two other parties. The existence of NZ First and Act gives Luxon some insurance: any change at the top would risk blowing up the coalition.
All the viable contenders – including Luxon’s highest-ranked ministers, Willis and Chris Bishop - have been here before and seen how questions about the leadership can wreck a party.
A party obsessed with itself rather than the country will always be punished by the voters.
If backbenchers do start getting antsy, they need a stern talking-to from their more senior colleagues, who have seen the consequences a leadership spill – or even the rumours of it – can have on a party.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Finance Minister Nicola Willis at the investment summit. Photo / Supplied
Willis’s most quoted comment at the investment summit was “stability is our middle name”.
National promised stability. Rolling its own leader will not achieve that.
Those ministers who have built up links and have influence over backbenchers – Erica Stanford, Chris Bishop and Mark Mitchell among them – are the ones who can nip any discontent in the bud by pointing out the consequences of it.
What those backbenchers should be told is that once restiveness begins, whispers follow. Whispers turn into leaks of discontent. Those get amplified once the media sniff them out.
And life gets even more difficult for a Prime Minister whose main chance of securing a second term comes down to being able to hold together a stable government.
The wise among National know that National voters value one thing above all others: being in power.
Anything or anyone who imperils that for their own self-interest will be punished.
There is a lesson in that for Act as well.
National’s gains in recent polls appear to have come from Act, which dropped to below 8% in the Taxpayers’ Union-Curia poll.
Act’s leader David Seymour may well be wondering whether those National voters he picked up are now deciding Seymour is the bigger risk to the chances of an ongoing National-led Government.
Whether the whispers are quelled or not, there is now an immense amount of pressure on Luxon.
Luxon himself is showing no signs of panic.
He is used to an environment in which shareholders don’t really care if you’re a charmer, amenable or popular: they care about what you can do for the bottom line and dividends.
So Luxon is putting his efforts into trying to ensure those dividends are showing for voters in time for the election: roads, second Auckland Harbour crossings, public safety, lower interest rates and so on.
While the Infrastructure Investment Summit itself will not be the solution to Luxon’s polling woes, the fruits of it might be.
