Capitalist
Information
Opinion
When a political party in opposition changes its leader and replaces a former prime minister with somebody else, it is seldom successful; only Muldoon replacing Marshall has been the exception, due mainly to the personalities of ‘both’ men. The only people who never understand this truism are, predictably, politicians themselves.
Blinded by ambition and believing their own publicity and that of sycophants whispering in their ears, they rush into foolish leadership challenges only to land in a quagmire. Nash, Nordmeyer, Lange, McClay, Clark, English (first time around), Goff, Bridges… All struggled when replacing a former prime minister, often with disastrous political consequences.
To put this another way, the reason the 1978 and 1993 elections saw the Labour party hop out of its grave and come uncomfortably close to victory was because on each occasion their leader was a former prime minister. There was no ‘tactical advantage’ for the incumbent National prime minister because Labour canvassers door knocking and meeting an undecided voter could claim ‘our man was prime minister so will hit the ground running’. It sounded convincing: plausible.
I have no doubt (and was saying so at the time), Muldoon leading National in 1987, Moore leading Labour in 1996, Shipley leading National in 2002, Clark leading Labour in 2011 or English leading National in 2020 would have seen a vastly different election result. Not only would the prime minister of the day have no ‘tactical advantage’, but the opposition leader (i.e. former prime minister) could spend (literally) years asking people to make comparisons (i.e. rather unfair ones!) between the two.
Wanting to be Prime Minister of New Zealand is not an ignoble ambition but if you have even half a brain you achieve the ambition while in government, like Sir Keith, Gentleman Jack or Moore: not do something stupid like become opposition leader. That lark is for prize bunnies and we all know what politicians are like: you can’t tell them anything. So they get themselves elected opposition leader then leap into the quagmire – with predictable results.
Simon Bridges was one example of this: replaced a former prime minister, sloshed around in a quagmire and never got much traction. Ended in tears [for him]. So imagine my surprise, dear reader, reading an item in the NZ Herald today and finding Simon Bridges is… back for another go.
He is about to become chief executive of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce, replacing the well-known public face of that organisation for several decades. Michael Barnett is pretty much ‘part of the furniture’ nowadays, due to being in the job since 1988 – so much so I imagine many folk think he is the only CEO they have ever had! Basically a national treasure.
Whoever replaces him will struggle, will be subject to unfair comparisons and will seem ‘awkward’ to the general public when compared with Barnett because said general public are so used to him and won’t pay the same level of attention to the new chap regardless of who he turns out to be. Oh, and Bridges a former politician to boot, which lessens his credibility among a large section of the population.
I like Simon Bridges, wish him well – of course I do – but jeepers, he sure loves to make life difficult for himself, doesn’t he?
