Christopher Luxon leadership: Why National would be ‘nuts’ to roll him

Besides, there are plenty of reasons for the National Party to stay the course with their current team and the current leadership.

Firstly, things are going quite well. The Government inherited a hell of a mess and the clean-up seems to be going well. Sure, they were a bit slow getting started and their first full year looked like someone forgot to tell them when to start. But year two has been different.

The economic recovery has been slower than anticipated. That reflects the extent of the economic problem they inherited, but they were also a bit timid in taking that challenge on. But the past 12 months have seen progress. Most importantly, inflation is back under control and interest rates are back where we need them to be. That will free up cash flow for mums and dads and make life for everyone a bit easier.

The farming industry is back with a bang, and its successes will feed all of us as the money flows into the rest of the economy. Tourism and international education, both once feared as gone forever, are now back, almost to their pre-Covid levels.

If we are to believe that “it’s the economy, stupid” that wins elections, I’m guessing that the ongoing recovery will ensure an election-year economy that sits in the Government’s favour.

Secondly, the last time the Nats became restless about the leadership, they changed the leader three times in 12 months. Unable to bring themselves to retain English, or for that matter the super qualified Steven Joyce, they tried Simon Bridges, then Todd Muller and finally Judith Collins before the disaster that was the 2020 election. Such behaviour looks messy and reflects poorly on everyone involved.

Of course, people like us don’t know what went on behind the scenes. But Christopher Luxon was the guy who settled the ship and, having done so, managed to win an election and put together a complicated coalition to lead the country.

Thirdly, I’m hoping that there are members in the National Party caucus who understand their own history. Someone once said that if you don’t take notice of history, you will become history. That history lesson is very clear when it comes to replacing prime ministers during a parliamentary term.

In fact, our history is littered with the shattered dreams of aspiring PMs who took over the hot seat without earning it and who were subsequently turfed out by the voters.

Since 1960, a number of people have “assumed” the prime ministership after replacing a colleague. Jack Marshall took over from the retired Sir Keith Holyoake in the 1970s and promptly lost the election to Norman Kirk. When Kirk died in office, Bill Rowling took over, only to lose the election 14 months later to Rob Muldoon. David Lange’s premature departure in 1989 saw first Geoffrey Palmer, who lasted 13 months and then Mike Moore (two months) at the helm until the latter lost the 1990 election to Jim Bolger. Jenny Shipley rolled Bolger halfway through his third term as PM, only to lose to Helen Clark some two years later.

Only Bill English, who took over from a retiring John Key a year out from the end of his final term, came close to winning the election. In fact, English did get the most votes in that election. However, unfortunately for him and the country, the absurdity of our MMP system ensured that he didn’t take power.

Fourthly, and with apologies to Christopher Bishop, they don’t have a ready replacement. Despite what Bishop and his supporters may think, he’s no Bill English. And right now, he’s too similar to his likely opponent. Any competitive experience will tell you that you don’t fight like with like. You fight with points of difference. I remember the Nats once panicking over the Ardern effect and talking about putting Nikki Kaye up against her. That was doomed to fail for the same reasons. Fortunately for all concerned, they didn’t do that either.

Both Hipkins and Bishop are from the Hutt. Both have worked in the political establishment all their working lives, although to be fair to Bishop, he once went outside the front yard and worked for tobacco company Phillip Morris, as a lobbyist. Bishop is clearly a better, more capable minister than Hipkins has been, but beyond that, they’re both ordinary. There are some people who could wear a $10,000 suit and still look underdressed. On the international stage, Bishop and Hipkins share that weakness.

It will come as no surprise to readers that I like politicians who’ve had some real life and real work experiences before they turn up in Parliament. Far too many of our politicians, on both side sides of the House, don’t present with such experiences. Those that do, however, are better equipped for the role as decision makers and legislators. Both Bishop and Hipkins fall into the category of politics graduates, who became political advisers, and parliamentarians. Neither have been in the real world, generating real-world management and leadership experience.

Luxon might not be popular, but that real-world experience is what the incumbent carries into battle every day. Bishop may get there one day. But right now, he’s not the right guy.

Finally, let’s not forget that this Government is getting good things done.

At the top of that list is education, where the latest data would suggest real and tangible progress in turning around attendance and achievement, and all within very short timeframes.

We need to keep in mind that our education “basket case” was one of the calling cards of our last Government, a Government that included the aforementioned Labour leader as Education Minister.

A little over a year ago, the Government launched the “make it count” maths action plan and introduced a new curriculum to overcome poor achievement in mathematics. In case you missed it, the Ministry of Education this week reported significant gains in maths achievement within 12 weeks of implementing the new programmes. The gains appear to be across all students, irrespective of background or apparent ability.

While that’s been going on, it’s been difficult to overlook the efforts of Luxon, Winston Peters, Todd McLay and others as they have gone about rebuilding our battered international visibility and trade profile. To hear these three ministers talk with passion and enthusiasm for the potential of our country is motivational to say the least and it reminds us of what these roles are really all about.

As if that’s not enough, it seems that there’s now the prospect of a free trade agreement with the world’s most populated country, India. Such an agreement will have a massive and positive impact on a food-producing nation like New Zealand.

And along the way we’re reducing red tape, gradually (too gradually in this writer’s view) enhancing our financial discipline, refocusing Pharmac, and rebuilding our police force under a no-nonsense and empathetic leader.

We’ve sorted out a Reserve Bank that had gone off the rails. Business confidence is at its highest level for 11 years. Consumer confidence is up in November. Retail spending is sneaking upwards. And our real estate market is slowly crawling its way out of the doldrums. We’ve even ordered new Cook Strait ferries.

And so, we look forward, one year out from an election that will either continue to deliver the plan for our ongoing recovery, or send us back to the mess of incompetence, division and envy.

While I find it difficult to be a true fan of any politician, it’s getting harder to push back on the current bunch. In Luxon, we have a PM who is genuinely ambitious for the country rather than for himself. That’s a major change.

The current leadership team that he’s a part of is holding together a coalition of unnatural bedfellows which to date hasn’t shown any signs of unravelling. You’d expect some loose threads to appear during election year, as parties fight to push their own narrative, but for now, you’d regard this coalition as a success.

Luxon’s weakness is that he struggles for popular appeal. But I don’t want a popular idiot.

I’d rather have an unappealing but capable leader holding the reins, one who aspires for us to be, and to have, something better.

And hence my view, that the Nats would be nuts to make a change. I don’t think any of us wants a government that reacts and backs off when the polls become worrisome.

I’d prefer us to elect a political team that is ambitious for the country and backs its plan to achieve great outcomes for its people.

It’s two ticks for ’26. The only question is “who will get them?”