Written By:
Mike Smith - Date published:
10:12 pm, December 18th, 2024 - 24 comments
Categories: chris bishop, chris hipkins, Christopher Luxon, leadership, national, nicola willis, polls, same old national, todd muller -
Tags:
Or about to be rolled? Word has it that Chris Bishop is waiting in the wings, as Luxon’s favourability rating drops below Hipkins.
Bishop is an inveterate plotter, although his last effort with Nicola Willis to dump Simon Bridges in favour of Todd Muller did not demonstrate much political nous.
Another indicator that Luxon’s days may be numbered is this article from Matthew Hooton in last month’s Herald titled “Christopher Luxon is completely out of his depth.” Hooton was a player in the previous Bishop/Willis plot.
Certainly Luxon’s motor-mouth, corporate-speak, “what I have to tell you” style of communication is increasingly losing effectiveness. Not that Bishop is that much better.
And I could be wrong about the runner. Nicola Willis is the type of ambitious deputy to be feared. She doesn’t always get it right though; I still remember her trailing her coat in front of the media just before the National party caucus meeting that knifed Bridges and installed Muller saying “I’m just going into caucus to support Simon Bridges.”
To quote a politically astute friend’s favourite saying: “watch this space.”
Yesterday in Parliament National attempted to embarrass Carmel Sepuloni in question time by asking her detailed economic questions. But the attempt backfired.
It is very clear now why National did not agree to a further debate between the leaders. Last night's debate between Chris Hipkins and Christopher Luzon was totally one sided.
Fact checking by TVNZ has determined that much of what Christopher Luxon said in the recent leader's debate was not true.
Nah, Willis is a woman.
Peter Thiel doesn't like women running his NZ bolthole, so he'll fund a ditchthewitch campaign again, like he did with Ardern.
And the Nats can't let down all those boys' own manual voters of theirs who have been puffed up by Jordan Petersen to believe women are taking over the world.
willis is invisible theese days , just pops up occasionally to try sell her incompetence as competence, nz won't vote for her.
There is usually someone in these leadership speculation scenarios that says something along the lines of “nah…keep the incumbent–best weapon the opposition has…”
I can tell you…there is certainly some truth in that with luxury Luxon, the problem being his boneheaded lack of political instinct and ability which has allowed Act to drag NZ back to the 90s in a mere 12 months.
So all in all who leads NZ Labour and whether Greens, TPM and Labour can unite around a popular platform asap is more important.
Given we run parliament like a business these days, why not make Luxon redundant and make Seymour leader of National and ACT.
It would save the country money and Luxons been koutouing to Seymour anyway.
It's all up for grabs. Usually new PMs get a honeymoon period where preferred PM question in polls goes up. Not this PM ; teetering on the brink with Chippy 1% behind him. Surely Bishop doesn't believe he would be more popular though? Willis is now the face of a failing economy. Who else? No one I can think of, That's why I believe it will get really rocky as Seymour takes over as DPM. He really fancies himself, but he is abhorrent. Winston is on his last rodeo and Shane Jones is just embarrassing. Should be an interesting 2025 and parties on the Left need to keep disciplined and not get into leadership speculation. Good to see some collaboration between Labour, Greens and TPM.
Think Willis would be in the firing line as well, you might have figured a suitable replacement (who hasn't yet been caught for some sexual incident) for leader buy they must surely realise they are weak in the finance department as well
One might be forgiven for thinking this was a description of the current government. But no, it is from a post on the The Standard on 19 December 2009 describing the shambles which was the Key government.
I post this because it would be very dangerous to ever underestimate the Nats and their ability to fire up their election machine when it is needed. We all laugh at Luxon now, but we were laughing at Key after his first year and didn't expect that government to hold up, let alone be reelected. Unemployment was rising, government debt was rising, and the Nats were cutting services.
There are so many similarities.
True that but Luxon is viewed with more contempt after months in power than Key was after years in power.
Maybe, but Luxon is much less of an embarrassing dickhead than Key was, too, so it really wouldn't pay to take anything for granted. Luxon may look like a chump to you or me, but there are a lot of different and varied people out in the electorate.
Sure, comments on The Standard might be similar, but that's not very significant. Lefties won't applaud a popular Nat any more than an unpopular one.
What matters is public opinion outside the political echo chambers, and on that the difference between Key and Luxon is a vast chasm. One was popular from day one, the other never has been and is growing less popular if anything.
Evidence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2011_New_Zealand_general_election
Luxon won't be rolled any time soon, but in election year if there is any prospect of a one-term government (which there never was for Key) then the Nats will not be willing to go down with the ship.
I take on board your point.
But what is also very clear from your evidence is the support ACT and NZ First had during the period you have referenced. They virtually had no support as the Nats had eaten it up.
If you accumulate the centre right's support now, its not far off what it was back then. Although the Nats look less popular today, the centre right is still as popular as they were in 2009.
The fact that some polls suggest they could form a government if an election was held today should be a real concern. The economy is on its knees and they can still win.
So I stand by what I said. Don't underestimate them.
I think generally MMP elections come down to about 10% – the centre left and centre right have about 45% of solid(ish) support, and they are scrapping over the rest. Obviously there have been some historically bad outcomes in both directions, but that's my view of the general state of play at most elections.
In my mind, the question is whether Luxon benefits or harms the coalition.
I think the answer is clear. All three coalition parties so far have extracted more than their pound’s worth of flesh and have been given considerable autonomy to build and play in their own sandpits. Peters got [his] MFAT and his hobby horse Racing; MFAT got spared the Willis austerity cutting knife oppression (Wacko) and Seymour is like a kid on roids in a candy shop and is building his own legacy-fiefdom, the Ministry for Regulation, for example, not to mention his pet project Charter Schools is back. Luxon’s leadership allows it, enables it, and secures it, whether deliberate or accidental – Luxon is the right person in the right place at the right time.
National (and ACT and NZF) would be stupid (as in: commit political suicide) if they were to roll Luxon at this time.
Luxon is on a roll, buttered, pre-sauced and ready to serve at the New Year BBQs where the sausages are grilling on the back-burners, the salad blue-greens wilting on the side table, and the chillie bins stocked with Speights to be necked.
To paraphase TS Eliot, "In the rooms the caucus come and go, Talking of where which Chris is to go."
TS Eliot's "Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock" towards its end is prophetic-
"Politic, cautious, and meticulous;
Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse;
At times, indeed, almost ridiculous—
Almost, at times, the Fool."
.
My prediction is Luxon will get rolled regardless.
Why do you think that?
Because the nats have finally realised he's too thick to be trained?
He’s not thick, he’s thick-headed and thick-skinned; the only training he needs/needed is media training.
There is a mean bullying streak in his personality that no amount of media training will be able to hide. Also he can't lie straight, the tells are often quite visible.
I don’t think media training [for politicians] is intended to hide all lies and all ‘negative’ personality traits, e.g., showing more ‘mongrel’ has been called for by frustrated partisans on this site. What some people admire in others, other people my detest. Some people might think it’s okay to ‘lie’ to certain people such as a ‘pesky reporter’ about certain things. It all depends on context and beauty is in the eye of the beholder, isn’t it?
A ‘bullying streak’ can be seen as a sign of a tough strong leader (CEO). Remember Jon Key’s nickname?
Of course, I keep forgetting he's not the PM of NZ he's the CEO.
To me a bully is a bully notwithstanding their position in society. A strong leader doesn't have to be a bully.
BHN think he stutters when he doesn't believe what he's saying, which is very visible when that's the case.
It's not complicated really. Both National and Labour have a leader who is a negative rather than a positive. One is the most unpopular new PM in modern history (going back decades, since proper polling began). The other was a PM who led a failed, uninspiring election campaign and now hopes to do what hasn't been done since 1960 (lose and return to win the next one).
Either party could throw off the dead weight that holds them back among the general public (not the tiny minority of party hacks, who don't matter).
It's a stand-off for now ("I'm unpopular, but so are you"). If the polls shift markedly in favour of one Chris, the other will quit, willingly or not. MPs don't opt for noble suicide.
Was just thinking the same thing James.