Christopher Luxon remains leader of the National Party, and therefore Prime Minister. Surely, he will now lead National into the election on November 7. Leadership questions and the fact that the National caucus is undoubtedly divided will also surely be a major factor in the campaign. Voters will not simply ignore the fact that Luxon’s closest colleagues have such doubts about his leadership that he’s required two votes of confidence this year to keep his job.
The challenge for National to overcome in the next 87 days, however, is not merely its leadership issues, but the political reality this day happened at all. Because voters hate governments that are squabbling amongst themselves.
But National has listened to the warnings of history, however, in sticking with their existing leader. Because history tells us that voters punish governments that change leaders in an election year. It’s happened just four times before:
· In 1957, National replaced Sid Holland with Keith Holyoake just a couple of months before the election and National went on to lost to Walter Nash’s Labour Party.
· In 1972, Keith Holyoake retired early that year giving Jack Marshall a decent run into the November election, but it wasn’t long enough. Norman Kirk’s Labour Party took power.
· In 1990, the turbulent fourth Labour government ditched Geoffrey Palmer for Mike Moore less than two months before the election and Jim Bolger’s National Party won in a landslide.
· In 2023 (now under MMP), Jacinda Ardern announced her resignation in January and Chris Hipkins became Prime Minister later that month. He lost to Christoper Luxon and the National-led coalition.
Every time a government has changed leader in an election year, it has lost that election. In that sense, National has done the smart thing in not asking voters to pledge its support to a new leadership team it has hardly met.
Yet history lessons only go so far, because this is such a different scenario. In further proof that political cycles are speeding up along with the public’s attention span, it’s important to note that these leadership tensions are happening in this government’s first term. Every other election year leadership spill has come after two or, more often, three terms, when governments and voters are often tired of each other. Ideas have run thin. Familiarity is breeding contempt. New Zealand has never come this close to a Prime Minister being ejected from office in their first term. We’re in uncharted territory.
The problem that remains for National, however, is that voters have punished those parties that changed leaders because the leadership ructions exposed instability and self-indulgence in the government of the day. Despite his victory today, the fact remains that Luxon has had to orchestrate or steer down two votes of confidence in an election year. Even with Luxon still in charge, National can’t wish away the fact today happened. That does nothing to reassure the public about this government’s stability. In political maths, two confidence votes may well be just as damaging – or more damaging – than a leadership spill.
Christopher Luxon knows the public has no time for a government focused on its own issues. As a religious follower of talking points he often likes to talk about his “laser-like focus” on what matters to voters. This term started with Luxon’s 100 Day Plan and the promise of “a laser-like focus on bringing down the cost of living”. In his state of the nation speech this year he talked about “more focus toward building the future”. In June this year he told parliament “we are focussed on lowering the cost of living for New Zealanders”.
The problem is the talk – such as pot shots at small business-owners and musings about a MMP referendum – hasn’t matched the walk. When people are dying in hospital waiting rooms and the price of petrol is over $3 a litre, these are not what people want to hear. National’s caucus members have concluded today that their leader can reassert the discipline required to convince voters to stay the course. Or, at least, he will win more party votes than the other guys. The die is cast. Now it’s over to voters to decide what National’s commitment to his Prime Minister means to them.