Chris Hipkins must be the luckiest man in politics today.

Not only has he scored a magazine cover story just before the election about his forthcoming wedding, but his record as a senior Minister and then Prime Minister during the last Labour government has been overlooked by the media, and curiously also the National Party, when it comes to assessing his suitability to become Prime Minister again after this election.

When the issue of the $2.75 million his predecessor, Jacinda Ardern, signed off on behalf of the government for the Mongrel Mob was raised, Hipkins glibly brushed it off, saying now it was a mistake and something he was not particularly interested in at the time. 

The only problem with that cursory dismissal is that it was not just Ardern who favoured the gangs. When Hipkins was Prime Minister, his Cabinet considered whether and how the gangs could be used and funded to support the government in its fight against ram raids.

Moreover, Hipkins was a senior Minister for over five years in a variety of key portfolios before he became Prime Minister. He was closely involved in all the major decisions of the Ardern government, so he cannot credibly now shrug them off when they are criticised. As the Covid19 Minister he oversaw the prolonged second Auckland lockdown in late 2021that upended so many peoples’ lives. He was the one who briefly suggested Aucklanders' 2021 summer vacations might have to be staggered and even then, only taken with prior government approval.

Earlier, as Education Minister he was responsible for largely surrendering control of curriculum reform to the teacher unions, something the present government has been struggling to overturn. Even during the first leaders' debate this year he made it clear that "educators" (Labour's new euphemism for the teacher unions) and not parents would still have the final say on how and what children are taught, were Labour to be in office again.

Yet for the last three years, and throughout the current election campaign, both the National Party and the media have inexplicably ignored Hipkins' previous indifferent record. Neither have held him to account for his actions in government, yet previous actions are usually the best guide to future performance.

As the man who would be Prime Minister again the generally amiable Hipkins has still not learned why voters tossed his government so unceremoniously from office barely three years ago. Since then, he has given no hint that he would do things any differently were he to become Prime Minister again. And neither National nor the media seem interested or willing to challenge him on this point.

The media's actions in not highlighting Hipkins' previous failures are unforgivable and smack of outright bias. But more inexplicable is National's failure to hold Hipkins to account. That looks like simple ineptitude. They appear to think that it is too negative to keep reminding people of Labour’s time in office, but that overlooks the fact that voters often have short memories that need to be frequently refreshed.

Good political management is not just doing the job and telling the story, but also frequently contrasting that positively with what has gone before to establish a favourable impression in voters’ minds. By the Prime Minister’s own admission, National’s focus over the last three years has been on governing, which is good, but without the compare-and-contrast aspect of retail politics, that focus exists in a vacuum.

On every indicator except unemployment the country is doing better than it was three years ago but National has failed to sell that contrast, leaving the impression that things are little better than when Labour was in office. But had National kept the blowtorch on Hipkins and Labour, as well as governing, over the last three years, and kept reminding voters of what things had been like under the previous government, it is a reasonable assumption that the polling gap between the two blocs would now be far greater than it is today.

Hipkins knows this full well which is why he has kept his head down since the last election. He must be pinching himself with incredulity and delight that the combination of National's political ineptitude, and a pliant media, has left him largely unscathed. Consequently, even though his party is falling in the polls, thanks to the vagaries of the MMP system he now stands a real chance of emulating Keith Holyoake’s hitherto unique feat in 1960 of returning to office as Prime Minister after three years in Opposition.

As the election campaign has unfolded, with little of the usual drama, Hipkins has been allowed to look increasingly like the modern Teflon man, something National may well end up ruing to its cost after the election.

With just over three weeks till election day I am feeling increasingly politically homeless. None of the parties currently in Parliament, or aspiring to be, entice me to vote for them. Their policies are either too much of a muchness, too dislocated and small focused, or in some cases too downright crazy to attract my support.

Having previously been a member of the Labour Party for 22 years, and a Labour MP for over 10 years, I still have some residual interest in its activities. But any passing thought that I could vote for them again vanished during the first leaders' debate when Chris Hipkins made it clear that the teachers' unions, not parents, would be calling the shots on education policy if he were to lead the next government. It reminded me of one of the reasons why I quit the party all those years ago. The constant fixations of imposing higher taxes and always doing what the unions wanted had become just too much for me.

But National simply seems to have lost the plot altogether. The "brighter future" the party used to stand for has become lost in a sea of short-term checklists and management-speak gibberish that encourages no-one. And Chris Bishop's housing intensification drive smacks more of neo-Stalinism than the property-owning democracy National used to stand for.

The smaller parties look no more than a collection of snappy slogans masquerading as principles. Often, they are just a reflection of their leaders’ eccentricities and prejudices. And novice Quilae Wong’s political naivete is exposed when she talks about whom she will be telephoning after the election. In reality, it will be the other way round – the major parties will be the ones calling her if they need the Opportunity Party’s numbers to form a government.

According to TVNZ’s Vote Compass and other similar devices, no party comes close to what I am looking for. Yet I am determined to vote meaningfully at the election because I strongly believe that utilising the right to vote is the most important guarantor of the future of our democracy. It should not be shed lightly.

I am seeking a party that will promote traditional liberal values and reinvigorate the concept of liberal democracy, without all the accompanying ideological baggage that has dragged it down in recent years. It is a quest easier stated than achieved.

For me, the starting point should be a recognition that community values are the essential building blocks of our society. Everything springs from the various communities that make up our country so decisions affecting them should be made at the level closest to them. That means giving substance to the concept of localism and establishing more equal partnerships between central and local governments in delivering the services that impact directly on people’s lives. National talked about supporting localism in 2023 but has moved in exactly the opposite direction since then.

But governments at whatever level should neither be too dominating nor prescriptive. Their maxim should always be as little government as possible, as much government as necessary. However, that should never become a licence for governments to abdicate their social responsibilities completely the way the ACT Party advocates.

Supporting communities inevitably means upholding the absolute right to freedom of expression, choice, belief, and association however distasteful, extreme, or quirky that might be. We should never again tolerate or trust the type of “podium of truth” approach taken during the pandemic, as that was the antithesis of liberal democracy. The paramount right to free and open expression is far more about equalising communities’ opportunities than pandering to the government’s wishes.

At the same time, however, governments have a vital role in weaving the different strands of our ethnic and cultural communities into a unified national story. That story must both recognise our cultural, social, and economic diversities but also promote the common interest ahead of divisions and demonstrate what it means to be a New Zealander today. Striving for social cohesion, which acknowledges diversity but does not promote division the way New Zealand First and Te Pāti Māori are prone to do, should be a national priority. Governments should actively promote a common citizenship or sense of nationhood – something Norman Kirk frequently described as the unique bond we share by virtue of living on these islands.

Economic policy should be about regenerating opportunity and prosperity and growing an environmentally sustainable economy. It should embrace new, clean technologies and develop meaningful jobs that reflect the needs of a modern, globalised economy, rather than protect old institutions and ways of doing things.

Too often, the current emphasis is on regulating and controlling change, exemplified by the approach of the Green Party, rather than unleashing innovation. Education and training at all levels should therefore be about equipping people with the key educational and vocational skills they will need to function effectively in this modern global environment, rather than protecting the interests of the educators.

Overall, public services should be flexible, effective, and universally available. They ought to be focused especially on meeting needs compassionately. Service delivery should promote innovation and utilise new technologies where appropriate. Modern public services must become less about one-size-fits-all, and protecting the numbers of public servants, or doing things the safe and cautious way they always have been.

By my reckoning, none of the parties contesting this election yet fit this bill. All are either too beholden to the vested interests behind them, or too idealistic or mechanistic in their views to be able to develop a comprehensive and cohesive approach to government along these lines. As a result, whatever government emerges after this election seems set to continue the slide to mediocrity that has bedevilled us for years now.

And my forlorn search for a place to call political home therefore looks likely continue for a while yet.

The first leaders' debate was a dismal affair. Neither leader was persuasive, nor were their responses especially convincing. Both failed to achieve the circuit breaker each was seeking to reinvigorate their currently stalling campaigns. Together, their performances explain why the two major parties are attracting the lowest combined support levels since MMP was introduced thirty years ago.

Despite the contrary views of the panel of allegedly uncommitted voters, there was no clear winner of this dreary occasion. Christopher Luxon failed to demonstrate the empathy expected of modern political leaders. While he recited an impressive array of statistics about the government’s performance over the last three years, he seemed unable to weave them together into a cogent argument about how they were having a real and positive impact on people’s lives.

On the other hand, Chris Hipkins’ faux anger did not sit convincingly with his overall persona and left him looking merely petulant rather than genuinely concerned about the country’s situation today. Nor has he yet seemed to get the message that his government was thrown out at the last election because of its economic management that disrupted so many people’s lives and livelihoods in the wake of the pandemic.

Overall, the pattern of the debate was predictable. There were no dramatic moments, nor new policies announced. Rather, there was simply the turgid repetition of the lines of argument both leaders have pursued so relentlessly for the last three years, and which have turned off so many voters in that time. Nearly two-thirds of voters cast a party vote for either National or Labour in 2023 – but today polls show that, thanks to the efforts of the two Chrises since then, about one fifth of those voters intend to vote for someone else at this year’s election.

It is unlikely the first leaders’ debate will have done anything to arrest that trend.

By contrast, the radio debate between the two main finance spokespeople – National’s Nicola Willis and Labour’s Barbara Edmonds – was more constructive and positive. Although both also stuck to their previously well-rehearsed lines, each managed to inject a measure of personality and connection into the debate, something that had been demonstrably lacking in the more automaton-like performances of Luxon and Hipkins during their debate.

But there are two bigger questions than the respective performances that arise from the two debates so far.

First, was all the hype around them justified? Are the current audiences of Television New Zealand and Radio New Zealand still sufficiently large and representative for these debates to have any significant impact on voter opinion? After all, in today’s more dynamic media environment traditional broadcasting outlets are struggling to maintain audience share, and it is doubtful that debates between two staid contenders for the role of Prime Minister will do anything to turn that around.

Second, given that the next government will be a multi-party arrangement of whatever hue, how realistic and useful is it for debates to continue to focus solely on the leaders of the historical two main parties? The choice between Luxon and Hipkins is not a presidential one – the role of Prime Minister today is much than ever before that of chair of the board.

The emphasis should therefore be less on their specific party policies than on their capacity to bring together differing parties to form a cohesive government. Luxon inadvertently confirmed this point during his debate with his admission that while National’s policy was to progressively increase the age of entitlement to New Zealand Superannuation, it was not supported by either of his coalition partners, so, by implication, was unlikely to happen.

Likewise, although the issue of tax was curiously barely mentioned in the debate between Willis and Edmonds, it remains a live issue, especially as the currently high-polling Greens remain determined to push for the imposition of a wealth tax in addition to Labour’s capital gains tax. While Hipkins continues to rule that out, how credible is that, given the strong role the Greens are destined to play in any future Labour-led government?

At the very least, there is an argument for involving the Greens in debate where their proposition and commitment to it can be more thoroughly tested. The artificiality of constraining debates to the presumed major parties is becoming an outdated hangover from the past.

Overall, given both current media dynamics and today’s rapidly changing political landscape, it is increasingly difficult to see the continuing worth or relevance of the current pattern of debates in the traditional media, focusing on the key spokespeople of National and Labour only. The days of the old political duopoly are rapidly fading, and the current crop of their leaders makes even the entertainment value of their old-style debates dubious at best.

 

This week’s Taxpayers Union/Curia poll attracted far more attention than a single poll should. This was principally because it recorded support for Labour now being below what it was at the time of its defeat at the last election. However, at their best, polls are but a snapshot in time, with the long-term trends they disclose being far more significant than the individual result. So, it would be unwise to treat this Taxpayers Union/Curia poll, or any other single poll for that matter, in isolation from the wider context.

The significance of the Taxpayers Union/Curia poll is that it confirms a trend that has been apparent since about April – and that is bad news for Labour. Across all the polls since then, support for Labour has been in steady decline, while support for National has risen ever so slightly. The main beneficiary of the fall in Labour’s support appears to have been the Green Party, and more latterly, the Opportunity Party.

Given that the fall-off in support for Labour has been clear from all the public (and presumably Labour’s private) polling for nearly six months, Labour leader Chris Hipkins’ response that he was just getting into campaign stride was more than a little surprising, to say the least. There are, after all, just over eight weeks until the election. Advance voting begins in six weeks, and just over 45% of voters voted early at the 2023 election. So, the time for Hipkins to hit the decks running is rapidly running out.

It is becoming all too reminiscent of Labour’s unsuccessful and lack-lustre 2023 campaign. As the incumbent government at the time, Labour was fighting an essentially defensive campaign, both regarding its record since 2017, and, like today, strong attacks from National and its allies about hidden tax agendas. Labour’s current floundering in the wake of National’s somewhat inaccurate nine new taxes campaign has a strong sense of déjà vu about it. Compounding Labour’s difficulties then was Hipkins’ being laid low with Covid19 in the latter stages of the campaign.

Although Hipkins must shoulder the primary responsibility for Labour’s current shortcomings, he is not solely to blame. The bigger problem is the wider public perception that the Labour Caucus lacks talent. While there are likely capable people in the lower ranks of the Caucus, they are not being publicly promoted. Except for finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds, the senior ranks of potential Ministers still look too much like the tired, poor performers that were thrown out in 2023.

Indeed, the probable main reason Hipkins has survived the current Parliamentary term as party leader is the lack of a credible alternative. Edmonds has consistently said she does not want the job, while the other often mentioned contender, Kieran McAnulty, is simply too rough and ready and deliberately provincial to be likely to appeal to the middle-class urban voters Labour needs to attract to get across the electoral line.

In any case, as National came to realise with Christopher Luxon’s leadership, it is simply too late in the electoral cycle to change leaders. Some have drawn parallels to 2017 when Andrew Little stood down in favour of Jacinda Ardern just over seven weeks before the election. But this is not 2017 and there is no Ardern standing in Labour’s wings today.

Therefore, the obvious deficiencies in Labour’s Caucus notwithstanding, the party’s fate at the coming election will all come down to Hipkins’ performance over the next few weeks. He has been promising a strong campaign with exciting new policies for some time now, but to date there has been little evidence of it.

First, Labour was waiting for this year’s Budget numbers to be released before making firm policy commitments. That came and went in late May, with little response form Labour. Now Labour says it is waiting for the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Update (PREFU) due to be released on 29 September before making final commitments.

But time is running out for Hipkins and Labour. Labour keeps promising that “Better Starts Now” but not just yet. The more it says good things are coming the more suspicious and weary voters get that when opened Labour’s policy cupboard eventually opened, it will be largely bare.

What should be of greater concern to Labour is that elections are rarely decided on the spur of the moment. The trend line from all the polls has been clear for some time now. Not only has Labour’s support been falling for some months, but the centre-right bloc’s lead over the centre-left has been steady and slightly increasing since early this year. The advent of the Opportunity Party has only slightly dented these trends. So, the electoral die may well therefore have been cast.

When all the hype is stripped away, and the facts are confronted, Hipkins still faces a mighty uphill battle. His plaintive defence at a meeting with his own constituents this week in what was remarkably his first public campaign meeting that he is “just getting warmed up” simply smacks of too little, far too late. After nearly three years of apparent inaction in Opposition, the odds are firming against him that he can turn Labour’s campaign into a winning one.

Has Te Pāti Māori just ruled itself out of government, or will Labour’s Chris Hipkins cave in, in the pursuit of power? 

Te Pāti Māori's "bottom line" policies of subordinating the sovereignty of Parliament to the Treaty of Waitangi and a separate Treaty of Waitangi Commission, together with a contestable $200 million fund to promote Māori sovereignty issues raise that question. If ever implemented these changes would be the country’s most profound constitutional changes since the establishment of Parliamentary government in 1852.

Two immediate questions arise from these proposals. First, in the highly unlikely event Te Pāti Māori finds a partner in government willing to implement them, how would that occur? A major constitutional change of this magnitude, assuming it was adopted by Parliament, would have to be endorsed by a public referendum, presumably by a two-thirds majority. Or is Te Pāti Māori intending to avoid that path and simply impose its plans as a political deal, the price of supporting a government to take office?

That raises the second more immediately important question. What is the attitude of the Labour Party, the only major party Te Pati Māori will support to lead a government, to these proposals?  So far, unsurprisingly, Labour has not responded to Te Pāti Māori's announcements and their implications, but it will not be able to remain silent throughout the election campaign. National and its allies will ensure that the spectre of Te Pāti Māori's bottom lines hangs over Labour, whatever Labour’s response.

Meanwhile, Labour has raised again the co-governance issue which was so controversial at the last election. Its loose-lipped liability, Willie Jackson, told a weekend television interviewer that Labour would probably have to find different words to describe its co-governance plans, and said subsequently that Labour would not be promoting “silly” co-governance arrangements. All this did was make it clear that co-governance in whatever form remains on Labour’s agenda.

Te Pāti Māori's announcements and Jackson’s comments highlight Labour’s problems when it comes to meeting Māori aspirations. On the one hand, it cannot afford to ignore them and expect to retain its Māori support base. But, on the other hand, it cannot be seen as embracing them too fully, for fear of alienating its own conservative working-class base and floating, middle of the road voters, wary of such issues.

Chris Hipkins’ ongoing equivocation about whether
Labour could work with Te Pāti Māori in government constantly highlights this dilemma. In the current situation, he knows that if he concedes before the election to Te Pāti Māori's bottom lines he will likely not be able to even contemplate forming a government afterwards. Yet without Te Pāti Māori on board, especially if its electorate-vote only strategy succeeds in creating a substantial overhang, Hipkins is unlikely to be putting together a government anyway.

There is a way out of Hipkins’ dilemma – if he is courageous enough to adopt it. He could take the position that Te Pāti Māori's bottom lines effectively rule the party out of being a credible potential partner in government, and that Labour would instead look to form a government with the support of the Green Party and the Opportunity Party. On current polling numbers, that combination would be a real threat to the current government.

Such a decision would put pressure on Te Pāti Māori's electorate-vote only strategy. If voters in the Māori electorates saw there was little likelihood of Te Pāti Māori being in government, they may well conclude they would be better off voting for Labour candidates. That would be to Labour’s clear advantage.

On the other hand, Te Pāti Māori may well be trying to provoke Labour to proactively rule it out of government contention, and so give it a form of martyr status, enabling it to campaign in the Māori electorates that the whole current political system is conspiring against them and Māori aspirations. If it succeeds, it could then choose to sit outside government on the cross benches and use its numerical strength to oblige whoever is in government to have to negotiate with it on every issue of significance.

However, another consequence could be adverse for the Opportunity Party and the prospects of a centre left government. Any increased overt reliance on the Opportunity Party by Labour before the election might lead voters attracted to the party by its stated non-aligned positioning to conclude it really is a centre left stooge after all, and to desert it. That would not be to Labour’s advantage.

Through all this Hipkins’ problem remains that in trying to balance these competing pressures, alongside Labour’s avowed small target strategy which has left the party looking as though it stands for very little, he continues to look uncertain and indecisive. On that basis, rather than rule out Te Pāti Māori's bottom lines altogether, he is likely to look to pouring enough cold water on them to soothe the concerns of anxious voters, while still leaving the door open to some form of post-election discussion.

Whether such a formula will defuse the issue is highly doubtful, especially if National, ACT and New Zealand First, as seems certain, seize upon it, and Jackson continues his record of unguided mouthing-off.

The Opportunity Party may yet hold the ultimate key, should it make it to Parliament. In what is describes as the interests of commonsense, it has already ruled out supporting any government that retains Winston Peters as Foreign Minister. So, it will now be interesting to see whether it chooses to apply the same yardstick to working with any government that embraces Te Pāti Māori's bottom lines to overturn New Zealand’s current constitutional arrangements.

  

In the wake of the rise of the Opportunity Party in recent opinion polls there has been much commentary about the role of smaller parties as kingmakers when it comes to forming governments under MMP. Most of it has been overstated.

The folklore is that New Zealand First is the party that usually determines whether National or Labour leads the government. However, in fact, this has been the case in only two of the ten elections held so far under MMP – in 1996 and 2017. In both cases New Zealand First conducted parallel negotiations with both National and Labour before deciding which party to anoint in government.

Labour chose to go with New Zealand First and UnitedFuture in 2005 which kept the Green Party out of office. In 2023 National invited New Zealand First to join it and ACT to get the current coalition over the line.  However, in neither 2005 nor 2023 was the other major party (National in 2005 and Labour in 2023) involved in any post-election government formation negotiations, meaning a kingmaker situation did not apply.

In its day, UnitedFuture was a more persistent player in government than any other smaller party under MMP so far. It was part of successive Labour- and National-led governments formed after the 2002, 2005, 2008, 2011 and 2014 elections, although it was never in the position of determining whether those governments were Labour- or National-led. (In 2005, there had been the brief possibility of UnitedFuture, ACT, the original Māori Party, and potentially New Zealand First joining National to form a government to displace Labour, but such a five-party coalition was too unwieldly a combination to have been seriously considered.)

Apart from 1996 and 2017, it has been clear on election night on each of the eight other elections held so far under MMP who the lead party of government would be. The post-election negotiations therefore have been about the configuration of support party arrangements, and what role, if any at all, smaller parties might play in the government that was being formed.

In 2014, National had an outright majority on election night, so did not need support partners, but decided to keep its existing partners anyway. It quickly signed agreements confirming their support on confidence and supply only and no other policy matters because it felt that was unnecessary, given its apparent majority. But when special votes were counted, National had lost that election night majority, giving its support partners (UnitedFuture, ACT, and the Māori Party) considerably more influence. The looseness of the confidence and supply only agreements National had signed immediately after the election meant that for the entire 2014-2017 Parliament every policy had to be negotiated separately with those support partners.

Although the Opportunity Party's pledge that, should it make it to Parliament and be in a position to determine the shape of the next government, it will begin post-election talks with the largest party first is a noble and sensible position, it may not ultimately be a practical one.

For example, some, but by no means all, recent opinion polls suggest Labour will be the largest party in the next Parliament. On that basis, the Opportunity Party could be expected to begin post-election talks with Labour first. But to form a majority government Labour would also need to involve the Greens and Te Pati Māori. Even then, the polls suggest the margin for such an arrangement would be only a seat or two, which would be very unstable. Compounding this potential mix would be the vastly differing positions of all four parties on tax, making it hard to see how a workable compromise could be achieved between them, especially since Labour has said the only new tax it is prepared to consider is its own capital gains tax.

But if the Opportunity Party decided that was all too difficult and the potential outcome so unworkable, that it would be better talking to National, the position would be no less challenging. For a start, National's leader has so far consistently and arguably unwisely ruled out any negotiations with the Opportunity Party, although his intransigence would surely change if realpolitik dictated otherwise. And then there is the position of New Zealand First and ACT to consider. Neither would be likely to want to concede any ground to the Parliamentary newcomer.

However, based on the experience of eight of the ten previous MMP elections, the Opportunity Party, should it win seats in Parliament, is unlikely to face having to make that choice. Instead, it is far more likely to find itself being asked, if needed,  by one or other major party for support to help make up the numbers to govern, but with no option to go elsewhere.

So, while commentators may like to confer kingmaker status on parties, it has seldom happened in practice over the last thirty years of MMP.  The far more likely prospect remains that rather than shape events as a kingmaker, smaller parties will continue to be invited by one or other of the major parties, and on their terms, to help them form a government.

 

This week's attempted National Party leadership coup quickly descended into disorganised farce. The immediate casualty was not Christopher Luxon as his Caucus detractors may have hoped, but Chris Penk. Despite his repeated denials and public pledges of loyalty to Luxon, he was widely reported to be the stalking horse for at least one of those wanting to depose the Prime Minister. However, he ended up not only failing to achieve that goal but destroying his own promising political career in the process. 

One of the most basic norms of Parliamentary politics is that everything is ultimately about the numbers - the numbers to form a government, through to the numbers to topple a leader. Without the numbers to do things, politicians are impotent and unable to achieve anything, something Opposition parties face every mind-numbing day they are out of power.

Yet that basic point seems to have been either overlooked or not understood by those Caucus members wanting to get rid of Luxon. Making the case against his continued leadership was one thing, made easier by Luxon's recent gaffes, but organising the numbers to make a change became a step too far. With up to four potential challengers, the odds always had to be on Luxon coming through the middle and seeing them off.

His task would have been far more difficult had his critics been able to look beyond their visceral distaste for Luxon's style and agree on a single ticket to make the challenge. The fact they could not says less about the respective abilities of the potential challengers than it does about their competing and uncompromising egos and ambitions, which does not bode well for future Caucus cohesion.

Only once before has National ousted a sitting Prime Minister. In 1997 Dame Jenny Shipley oversaw a Caucus revolt against Jim Bolger while he was overseas, but there were then still two years to run until the 1999 election, not just under three months as at present. The last time National changed its leader this close to an election was in September 1957 when ailing Prime Minister Sid Holland was persuaded reluctantly to stand down after eight years in office to make way for Keith Holyoake (who lost the election three months later).

Nevertheless, despite the unique nature of the current circumstances, there are some wider political implications arising from it. 

The most significant relates to the increasing tendency to look to “saviour” leaders to revive a party’s flagging fortunes and the consequent attraction to non-career politicians to provide the answer. Dr Don Brash, who became National’s leader in 2003 after less than two years in Parliament was arguably the first of these. His backers believed that his background as a respected Governor of the Reserve Bank would equip him to provide prudent, “nonpolitician” leadership, but the experiment did not work.

Brash was toppled as National’s leader in 2006 and replaced by Sir John Key. Key had been in Parliament for just four years, following a successful international business career and became Prime Minister two years later. He is the exception that proves the rule because he quickly realised the difference between a successful external career and success in politics and made the adjustment accordingly.

Christopher Luxon had a similarly successful international business career and enjoyed an even more stellar rise than Key to become Prime Minister after only three years as an MP. But unlike Key, he has seemed unable and unwilling to leave his corporate background behind and transition into being an effective national political leader. Luxon’s language and style always come across as much more akin to that of a chief executive rather than a Prime Minister and often therefore out-of-step with the average New Zealander.

Former Labour leader David Shearer, who was parachuted into the Labour leadership in 2011 after two years as an MP, and following a successful United Nations and diplomatic career, is another case in point. He also failed to make the impact his supporters had hoped for and resigned the leadership after just over eighteen months.

The point arising from each of these examples, which all parties need to contemplate, is that “saviour” leaderships rarely succeed. There is no real substitute for solid, political experience. Luxon’s frequent excuse when confronted with situations that had challenged governments of recent years that he “wasn’t around then” is inadequate and leaves him increasingly looking out of his depth. Unlike Key, who went out of his way to learn the reasons why previous decisions had been made, Luxon always seems not all that interested.

For all that, National has now made the choice to persevere with Luxon, at least until the election. But unlike the aftermath of April’s confidence vote, which Luxon interpreted as an unqualified endorsement of his leadership style requiring no change, there will have to be some changes if Luxon’s professed determination to lead National to victory is to be achieved.

For a start, he needs to understand that MMP is about power sharing between parties of like intent to make government work, not single party domination the way it used to be. In that regard, and in the light of recent polling, Luxon needs to revisit his foolish, precipitate ruling out of the Opportunity Party as a potential post-election partner.

After all, the difference between success and impotence in politics still comes down to getting the numbers.