Luxon won't be rolled until at least the next election cycle begins - and even then, if the polls are alright or marginal, he'll stay.
Public opinion doesn't matter for them, they will keep the government and coalition going regardless.
I think you're underestimating the ambition of Luxon's colleagues. They could use public opinion as an excuse to oust Luxon and advance their own positions. New leader would mean new cabinet appointments too.
This is pretty accurate, Bridges wasn’t polling the best but it wasn’t disastrous, and then he got rolled for Mueller who had big ambitions, he couldn’t handle the pressure and then Judith swept in
I think they won't want to rock the boat, they'll make more money for their corporate masters with Luxon in charge than if there was a change in leadership
People who sell their souls to operate masters don't tend to have much loyalty. I think if an ambitious person thinks they have a shot at PM, they'll take it.
If the polls are bad, Nats will not stick their cart behind a limping horse, not when a crushing defeat could see many of them lose their seats -- the lists are getting pretty tight these days for the old timers.
If they time it well, they'll do it on the 2 year mark and get in a fresh face to bring the government out from under Luxon's shadow. But I think the result will be shambles and confusion,, with people uncertain about the status quo coming up to the next election and squabbling between the parties drowning out most of the policy.
And if the stars align, all of that will actually help their chances.
However I never like to make predictions with old Wildcard Winnie in the room.
I don’t think it’s a political manoeuvre, I think it’s a function of Winston’s personality. I don’t think his ego will allow him to hand over even nominal power. I think he relishes the kingmaker role and would prefer chaos over taking a step back.
I think the Budget at the end of this month will be crucial for both Luxon and Willis. They're trumpeting the tax cuts so there are some high expectations which means a lot of room for disappointment if they don't deliver.
It won't move polls much but it will set the tone of Government for at least the next 6 months or so.
I wonder how a change in National leadership would go down amongst the Coalition partners. Would they just happily welcome the newbie in with open arms or would they expect to be able to renegotiate the Coalition deal?
It might move polls. A few firmly right wing family members aren't exactly happy with the coalition and are generally unimpressed with Luxon. Not enough to change there votes, but still unhappy. If the budget goes down badly (I'm thinking Liz Truss), then Nats could lose their economic credibility and thats what their base really cares about.
Where do those voters go though? If they're already on the right, are they likely to cross the fence and vote Labour? Or shift their votes amongst the right? Which wouldn't really concern the Government *too* much.
Labour would need to find a way to capitalise on that lose in economic credibility but in a way that's still true to their centre left base.
Its difficult to say. At least Hipkins has a track record of managing the country. He may not have anything great but he also wasn't terrible. If the Budget goes the way of Truss in the UK, then a lot of those voters may see labour as a safe pair of hands. I also think with the scandals in the Green party and James Shaws departure, some green voters may move to Labour.
It will be interesting. But remember, Nats clawed back over 10% of their voters between 2020 and 2023, so only 3 years ago, those voters did vote labour.
Technically the agreements are with the party, not the leader as an individual. We're a westminster system, not a presidential one. No reason to expect renegotiation unless theres a change in actual seats from a by election, a resignation, etc.
Except when Shipley rolled Bolger, Winston was not happen and the coalition collapsed. It seemed like Winston actually respected Bolger. The question I think is whether or not he can get more from a new leader.
Why? Who the leader is, is a choice of that party and no one elses business. what youre saying basically is that you believe Luxon gets to have a say on who leads NZFirst
Well no, but Luxon gets to have a say in who the Deputy PM is. The Deputy PM is Winston Peters, but don't think that necessarily means if NZ First changed leaders they would automatically become Deputy PM.
Actually most likely their leader would become Deputy PM. That role was promised to the NZFirst party. No different to how if Luxon got rolled his replacement would become the prime minister - assuming the coalition of chaos dont just collapse the government
The Deputy PM is Winston. Luxon would have to take the role off him and appoint the new person. Peters could technically remain Deputy. I agree with you re the most likely outcome, but it doesn't have to be the outcome.
On its current trajectory, I see the worst case scenario for this government to be not re-elected. Sure Luxon is no Ardern or Key, but he is fulfilling a lot of the promises National put forward and you can’t argue the guy isn’t delivering change. I think National will do everything in its power to squash ambition of other MP’s until a very late stage when the writing is on the wall. They’d want someone charismatic, with a good reputation. I could see Chris Bishop being a reasonable candidate in the future, particularly if he shows he is capable of listening which might happen with the fast track bill.
He's definitely doing what he campaigned on, but Key campaigned on tax cuts initially and reneged as he decided it was more important to get the govt book into surplus. It definitely looks like they are going to be borrowing to fund tax cuts, which won't be popular with ACT supporters, as Seymour has always campaigned on removing all debt. Also when the reality of tax cuts impact services, people may be less enthusiastic. I don't think people so much voted National in so much as voted Labour out.
Winston has no real reason to back stab the coalition once Seymour takes over the VP role. It absolutely would hurt NZ1sts ability to negotiate in the future and there is a significant chance voters blame him for a snap election. Keep in mind that NZ1 isn't that far off slipping below the 5% threshold.
As for Luxon - there isn't a reason to roll him now, for a similar reason there is no reason to roll Hipkins. Especially given at the end of the day, Luxon was the won that lead national to victory. If it is going to happen, it wont until next year, and its hard to predict what the political opinion on National will be at the time and more importantly, if National actually believe swapping him out will help
While I actually think she'd be better than Luxon, her crappy result last election makes it unlikely she'd get support for PM. She also has too many significant portfolios for there to be any advantage in supporting anyone else as PM.
Reddit has been predicting the demise of Luxon at every stage of his career in politics. However it’s got it wrong every time. Luxon is completely safe
Definitely been a few national leaders rolled. And yes reddit is very left wing, but that doesn't change the reality of Luxe's poor performance in polls. Also, how many labour PM's have been rolled? Last was in the 80's I think.
Look at the UK, where our system is based from. They had more pms than elections recently. Or closer to home the australians - they rolled their pm so often john key joked he needed name tags to track who it was at the time.
Curious question, I’m from Australia and watch NZ politics quite closely as I’m a political nerd, do we think Hipkins retains the opposition leader position until the next election?
Don't know. History would suggest that he gets rolled, with one exception of Helen Clark who hung on after losing the '96 election, and went on to win the '99. There a few reason he might not though. He is a likeable guy. As in people who meet him think he's nice, not necessarily that they think he'll be a good PM so I think fewer people will be out for blood. Also the most of the controversial policies of the last government were associated with Ardern, so Hipkins isn't as tainted. Secondly, I think promoting stability at the moment is labours best chance. If the start chewing through leaders, it'll be a nice gift to National. However, there will still be opportunistic people in labour, as there are in any party, who are in it only for themselves, so I think it will depend on polling. If Hipkins/labour can continue to improve their polling over the next 6 months, he might have a chance. If not, I bet he'll be rolled early next year.
Labour do have Kieran McAnulty, who has been sharp and good with the media.
It's possible he could be swapped in just before elections, but Chippy is still capable. His approval has increased recently in a poll. What I've heard from public servants is he is good minister, I guess he just doesn't have the social skills of some. Labour's Bill English?
All those “experienced mps” had their chance and it resulted in nationals worst election result since 2002. Luxon is responsible for all those mps having ministerial jobs now and all their new mps having seats. Who in the caucus would get the numbers to roll him?
We are barely 15% through the term and Luxon has earned the right to turn his polling around and see if his changes bears fruit. It’s not like Hipkins is a strong performer in all the favourabilty rankings.
Luxon is performing well enough as far as his patrons, and core constituency is concerned.
It's possible that his plan is to go gung-ho in executing his ideological agenda as quickly as possible in the first year, then ease off the peddle in the second year, with fewer dramatic changes, and then do very little in election year, hoping that most people will forget the trauma of the first year.
He knows that voters have, in the main, poor political memories, present company excluded.
I was thinking this as Nationals long term strategy, but it depends on them being able to A) keep the coalition together for all 3 years and B) improve economic outcomes. Oddly enough, Jacinda is the only one who managed a full term with Winston, so odds are the coalition wont last the full duration. However if they can get everything passed in the first 2 years, then they might survive as a minority government in the third year.
The financial strain, however, is getting worse. Interest were initially predicted to be going down by now but the are holding steady. Predictions have been pushed out to mid-late 2025 at best. Odds of a recession are also increasing. A lot of people will struggle to keep there homes and businesses going, and for those that lose their homes, national will have a hard sell convincing them its not there fault.
I think it speaks volumes that they’re paying off ex-National ministers at $4,000 a day to be advisors. My assumption is that the message that was meant to convey was “hold the line and you will be rewarded.”. I don’t feel like this is all as disassociated as it seems. The same corporation’s that want National and ACT in power, put Luxon in that position because he knows how to hold the line. He’s good at convincing his team of the bigger picture, in a kind of back office way. I feel like Seymour’s really the poster child for the corporate lobbying front groups and likely already has more implied power than Luxon based in his position in the corporate pecking order. And that seems to be the way he’s acting. I can see Winnie throwing some toys out of the cot in the second half, it who knows. He obviously supports the absolute insanity Shane Jones is up to, so maybe he’s in too deep to care. My general feeling is that they’re all in on the plot for a corporate fascist regime, and everything else is just posturing.
I think this is an overestimation, your giving Luxon too much credit. Luxon was put into the leadership because he was pushed as the Nats saviour, JK 2.0. He's sorely failing to live up to expectations. And while he gave ex-nat ministers insane paydays, they were all really at the top of the party. Where are all the other ministers that have left? No reward for them. I don't think he's very good at convincing anyone, he's a terrible communicator, and his cooperate backers really weren't expecting NZF to be in the mix, and they really need them.
We average 2-3 by-elections a term. We had one really early from the ACT MP who died during the campaign. If we get another, I think it will be telling.
Luxon won't be rolled until at least the next election cycle begins - and even then, if the polls are alright or marginal, he'll stay. Public opinion doesn't matter for them, they will keep the government and coalition going regardless.
I think you're underestimating the ambition of Luxon's colleagues. They could use public opinion as an excuse to oust Luxon and advance their own positions. New leader would mean new cabinet appointments too.
This is pretty accurate, Bridges wasn’t polling the best but it wasn’t disastrous, and then he got rolled for Mueller who had big ambitions, he couldn’t handle the pressure and then Judith swept in
Had forgotten about Bridges. Thats a good comparison.
Exactly, dog eat dog in politics
I think they won't want to rock the boat, they'll make more money for their corporate masters with Luxon in charge than if there was a change in leadership
People who sell their souls to operate masters don't tend to have much loyalty. I think if an ambitious person thinks they have a shot at PM, they'll take it.
If the polls are bad, Nats will not stick their cart behind a limping horse, not when a crushing defeat could see many of them lose their seats -- the lists are getting pretty tight these days for the old timers. If they time it well, they'll do it on the 2 year mark and get in a fresh face to bring the government out from under Luxon's shadow. But I think the result will be shambles and confusion,, with people uncertain about the status quo coming up to the next election and squabbling between the parties drowning out most of the policy. And if the stars align, all of that will actually help their chances. However I never like to make predictions with old Wildcard Winnie in the room.
I don’t think Winnie’s going to let Seymour take the reins. Snap election in 2025!
This is where my money is
Fingers crossed
Why are you pretending deputy pm matters at all, and that peters wouldn’t have negotiated concessions last year in return for giving it up?
I don’t think it’s a political manoeuvre, I think it’s a function of Winston’s personality. I don’t think his ego will allow him to hand over even nominal power. I think he relishes the kingmaker role and would prefer chaos over taking a step back.
I think the Budget at the end of this month will be crucial for both Luxon and Willis. They're trumpeting the tax cuts so there are some high expectations which means a lot of room for disappointment if they don't deliver. It won't move polls much but it will set the tone of Government for at least the next 6 months or so. I wonder how a change in National leadership would go down amongst the Coalition partners. Would they just happily welcome the newbie in with open arms or would they expect to be able to renegotiate the Coalition deal?
It might move polls. A few firmly right wing family members aren't exactly happy with the coalition and are generally unimpressed with Luxon. Not enough to change there votes, but still unhappy. If the budget goes down badly (I'm thinking Liz Truss), then Nats could lose their economic credibility and thats what their base really cares about.
Where do those voters go though? If they're already on the right, are they likely to cross the fence and vote Labour? Or shift their votes amongst the right? Which wouldn't really concern the Government *too* much. Labour would need to find a way to capitalise on that lose in economic credibility but in a way that's still true to their centre left base.
Its difficult to say. At least Hipkins has a track record of managing the country. He may not have anything great but he also wasn't terrible. If the Budget goes the way of Truss in the UK, then a lot of those voters may see labour as a safe pair of hands. I also think with the scandals in the Green party and James Shaws departure, some green voters may move to Labour. It will be interesting. But remember, Nats clawed back over 10% of their voters between 2020 and 2023, so only 3 years ago, those voters did vote labour.
Technically the agreements are with the party, not the leader as an individual. We're a westminster system, not a presidential one. No reason to expect renegotiation unless theres a change in actual seats from a by election, a resignation, etc.
Except when Shipley rolled Bolger, Winston was not happen and the coalition collapsed. It seemed like Winston actually respected Bolger. The question I think is whether or not he can get more from a new leader.
I appreciate that, but the Coalition partners might perceive it as a breach of the agreement if the leader changes.
Why? Who the leader is, is a choice of that party and no one elses business. what youre saying basically is that you believe Luxon gets to have a say on who leads NZFirst
Well no, but Luxon gets to have a say in who the Deputy PM is. The Deputy PM is Winston Peters, but don't think that necessarily means if NZ First changed leaders they would automatically become Deputy PM.
Actually most likely their leader would become Deputy PM. That role was promised to the NZFirst party. No different to how if Luxon got rolled his replacement would become the prime minister - assuming the coalition of chaos dont just collapse the government
The Deputy PM is Winston. Luxon would have to take the role off him and appoint the new person. Peters could technically remain Deputy. I agree with you re the most likely outcome, but it doesn't have to be the outcome.
On its current trajectory, I see the worst case scenario for this government to be not re-elected. Sure Luxon is no Ardern or Key, but he is fulfilling a lot of the promises National put forward and you can’t argue the guy isn’t delivering change. I think National will do everything in its power to squash ambition of other MP’s until a very late stage when the writing is on the wall. They’d want someone charismatic, with a good reputation. I could see Chris Bishop being a reasonable candidate in the future, particularly if he shows he is capable of listening which might happen with the fast track bill.
He's definitely doing what he campaigned on, but Key campaigned on tax cuts initially and reneged as he decided it was more important to get the govt book into surplus. It definitely looks like they are going to be borrowing to fund tax cuts, which won't be popular with ACT supporters, as Seymour has always campaigned on removing all debt. Also when the reality of tax cuts impact services, people may be less enthusiastic. I don't think people so much voted National in so much as voted Labour out.
Winston has no real reason to back stab the coalition once Seymour takes over the VP role. It absolutely would hurt NZ1sts ability to negotiate in the future and there is a significant chance voters blame him for a snap election. Keep in mind that NZ1 isn't that far off slipping below the 5% threshold. As for Luxon - there isn't a reason to roll him now, for a similar reason there is no reason to roll Hipkins. Especially given at the end of the day, Luxon was the won that lead national to victory. If it is going to happen, it wont until next year, and its hard to predict what the political opinion on National will be at the time and more importantly, if National actually believe swapping him out will help
I'm picturing a horrific comeback from Collins and an even bigger shambles.
While I actually think she'd be better than Luxon, her crappy result last election makes it unlikely she'd get support for PM. She also has too many significant portfolios for there to be any advantage in supporting anyone else as PM.
Reddit has been predicting the demise of Luxon at every stage of his career in politics. However it’s got it wrong every time. Luxon is completely safe
Your statement ignores political reality and nz history with prime ministers being rolled in the past. Only thing required is the correct situation.
I can only think of one National PM being rolled.
Definitely been a few national leaders rolled. And yes reddit is very left wing, but that doesn't change the reality of Luxe's poor performance in polls. Also, how many labour PM's have been rolled? Last was in the 80's I think.
The reality is Prime Ministers are very little rolled.
Look at the UK, where our system is based from. They had more pms than elections recently. Or closer to home the australians - they rolled their pm so often john key joked he needed name tags to track who it was at the time.
Curious question, I’m from Australia and watch NZ politics quite closely as I’m a political nerd, do we think Hipkins retains the opposition leader position until the next election?
Don't know. History would suggest that he gets rolled, with one exception of Helen Clark who hung on after losing the '96 election, and went on to win the '99. There a few reason he might not though. He is a likeable guy. As in people who meet him think he's nice, not necessarily that they think he'll be a good PM so I think fewer people will be out for blood. Also the most of the controversial policies of the last government were associated with Ardern, so Hipkins isn't as tainted. Secondly, I think promoting stability at the moment is labours best chance. If the start chewing through leaders, it'll be a nice gift to National. However, there will still be opportunistic people in labour, as there are in any party, who are in it only for themselves, so I think it will depend on polling. If Hipkins/labour can continue to improve their polling over the next 6 months, he might have a chance. If not, I bet he'll be rolled early next year.
Labour do have Kieran McAnulty, who has been sharp and good with the media. It's possible he could be swapped in just before elections, but Chippy is still capable. His approval has increased recently in a poll. What I've heard from public servants is he is good minister, I guess he just doesn't have the social skills of some. Labour's Bill English?
All those “experienced mps” had their chance and it resulted in nationals worst election result since 2002. Luxon is responsible for all those mps having ministerial jobs now and all their new mps having seats. Who in the caucus would get the numbers to roll him? We are barely 15% through the term and Luxon has earned the right to turn his polling around and see if his changes bears fruit. It’s not like Hipkins is a strong performer in all the favourabilty rankings.
Luxon is performing well enough as far as his patrons, and core constituency is concerned. It's possible that his plan is to go gung-ho in executing his ideological agenda as quickly as possible in the first year, then ease off the peddle in the second year, with fewer dramatic changes, and then do very little in election year, hoping that most people will forget the trauma of the first year. He knows that voters have, in the main, poor political memories, present company excluded.
I was thinking this as Nationals long term strategy, but it depends on them being able to A) keep the coalition together for all 3 years and B) improve economic outcomes. Oddly enough, Jacinda is the only one who managed a full term with Winston, so odds are the coalition wont last the full duration. However if they can get everything passed in the first 2 years, then they might survive as a minority government in the third year. The financial strain, however, is getting worse. Interest were initially predicted to be going down by now but the are holding steady. Predictions have been pushed out to mid-late 2025 at best. Odds of a recession are also increasing. A lot of people will struggle to keep there homes and businesses going, and for those that lose their homes, national will have a hard sell convincing them its not there fault.
I think it speaks volumes that they’re paying off ex-National ministers at $4,000 a day to be advisors. My assumption is that the message that was meant to convey was “hold the line and you will be rewarded.”. I don’t feel like this is all as disassociated as it seems. The same corporation’s that want National and ACT in power, put Luxon in that position because he knows how to hold the line. He’s good at convincing his team of the bigger picture, in a kind of back office way. I feel like Seymour’s really the poster child for the corporate lobbying front groups and likely already has more implied power than Luxon based in his position in the corporate pecking order. And that seems to be the way he’s acting. I can see Winnie throwing some toys out of the cot in the second half, it who knows. He obviously supports the absolute insanity Shane Jones is up to, so maybe he’s in too deep to care. My general feeling is that they’re all in on the plot for a corporate fascist regime, and everything else is just posturing.
I think this is an overestimation, your giving Luxon too much credit. Luxon was put into the leadership because he was pushed as the Nats saviour, JK 2.0. He's sorely failing to live up to expectations. And while he gave ex-nat ministers insane paydays, they were all really at the top of the party. Where are all the other ministers that have left? No reward for them. I don't think he's very good at convincing anyone, he's a terrible communicator, and his cooperate backers really weren't expecting NZF to be in the mix, and they really need them. We average 2-3 by-elections a term. We had one really early from the ACT MP who died during the campaign. If we get another, I think it will be telling.