The grossly unedifying spectacle of a failedeadership spill the National Party has just foisted upon the public is messy and stinks to high heaven; it makes Wellington’s recent problems with a large sewage spill look like a minor event. It is likely the this whole unpalatable debacle reinforces the perception among many voters that National is not fit to run the country.
National are saved when voters consider what is on offer from the other side if we can safely assume that any damage to National will be to the benefit of ACT or New Zealand First and not the opposition parties. To this extent the coalition itself might not be materially damaged by any National voter fallout but that does not diminish the problems the party is facing. The polls tell a pretty consistent story about National’s performance. They are nowhere near where they should be just ten weeks out from an election. A change in direction is needed but will it happen?
It is not often I agree with Matthew Hooton but the remarks he made during an appearance on Three News are indisputably correct. The truth bomb was that “when the prime minister said he had the full support of caucus and the caucus was unified, those words were untrue and the prime minister knew them to be untrue”. The Prime Minister professes to be a Christian and says that his faith shapes his values. He emphasises his beliefs are private rather than a political agenda. Is that why he thinks he can be less than honest with Kiwis and, more importantly, his voter base or what’s left of it?
Hooton went on to say that “the caucus does not believe he should be prime minister or the leader of the party but there are five people who could not agree which of them should replace him. They are Nicola Willis, Chris Bishop, Erica Stanford, Simeon Brown and Mark Mitchell. All of them potential leaders, all of them supposedly adults, all of them supposedly deeply care about the National Party and the country but none of them was prepared to give ground to one of the others. They couldn’t agree so each one of them said, ‘Oh well, if I can’t be PM then Luxon can remain’. That is shameful behviour for people who are meant to be loyal members of the National Party.”
Those five have not only damaged the party but have wrecked their own credibility and, as a result, their chances of ever becoming a leader. They are all high-ranking ministers and should have known better. They might be capable to handle their portfolios but it is now quite clear that (pardon the expression) ‘they couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery’. Hooton is correct: it is absolutely shameful.
Stability is what voters want from a government. That is something both ACT and NZF exhibit. A party that has its MPs continually fighting amongst themselves is far from a good look. Many who voted for National in 2023 are currently disappointed and now will be even more so. Whatever the outcome of the caucus meeting, it was going to be a bad look. Twice this circus has taken place, aided and abetted by the biased clowns in the media. However the coalition will most likely be returned to power despite the media trying to inflict maximum damage on it.
That, however, does not detract from the problems confronting the National Party. They are divided between liberals and conservatives. At the moment, it seems the weak, woke liberals are in charge; concerning to the party’s voter base which is largely made up of older conservative people who want decisive action on the things they voted for. This largely hasn’t happened and some issues have been put on the back burner. Liberals are mainly found on the left of politics which is why so many people on the right say Luxon, Willis, Bishop and Stanford could sit comfortably with the Labour Party.
National has to change direction in order to engage better with and represent its voter base; not ignore the voters and embark on a different agenda. National was founded as a conservative party and should be applying those ideals. Falling short is a disavowal of the party’s founding principles.
Without some significant changes, such as uniting the two factions and changing direction, National will find the excrement will continue to hit the fan. One can compare the liberals in National to the RINOS in the Republican Party in America. They do not truly represent what the party stands for. National has already lost a significant number of its traditional supporters. Its minor partners are looking like a much more comfortable proposition and getting voters back will not be easy.
A reset is desperately needed. That now rests with Luxon. He must prove he is listening to the wider electorate, particularly those on the right. Like many others, I’m not holding my breath.
