Episode Transcript
[00:00:04] Hi everybody. Welcome along to another episode of the Dispatchers podcast. My name is Brendan Malone. It is great to be back with you again. And today I'm going to be talking about the disastrous day for the National Party that unfolded yesterday with the attempted leadership change and the aftermath, really. The fact that National MP Chris Pink has now announced his retirement from politics at the upcoming election in only a matter of a couple of months from now, that'll be it for him.
[00:00:40] So I really just want to share a few thoughts about all of this. So there will be an almost stream of consciousness type approach to today's episode, but I will also do my best to try and keep some sort of semblance of order here. Let's pretend that this is the most ordered and the best podcast that you've ever heard in your life, even though it probably will just sort of take a few little twists and turns.
[00:01:05] But let me start with what I think is something that seemed like the most relevant place to start and that is the fact that you can't blame the media for this coup. And I know some people are trying to do that and some people are very insistent. This was a media generated coup, this was a media driven coup.
[00:01:21] I think it is entirely correct to say, no, that absolutely the media did a lot to stoke the flames and the fire of intrigue and really sort of, they were clearly caught up in the court intrigue of all of this, of what was going to happen, were heads going to roll? Was there going to be a new leader?
[00:01:46] You know, all of the various machinations, it was like a political train spotter's dream come true. It was like it was fever pitch.
[00:01:55] And you know, that's the reality of the media though today in a lot of issues, in a lot of areas, this is how it works.
[00:02:02] And so, yeah, you can have a critique of the media. We can critique, and I think rightly so, the media, the mainstream media in different areas of their performance, certainly in the space of politics. I think one thing where clear critique does have to be leveled, I think where it's warranted, where it is deserved, is in the inconsistency of their approach between the two major party leaders.
[00:02:26] The fact that there has been nowhere near the same level of scrutiny leveled against Chris Hipkins as against Chris Luxon, despite the fact that they are both polling in similar trajectories and there have been polls that have shown a dip. And so it seems if you're going to ask questions of one major party about leadership suitability and whether they need to change leaders, then you should be asking them about both major parties. And maybe that's just the fact that the mainstream media does not have a balanced schedule of commentators. They've got far too many commentators because a lot of this probably would fall into op ed as well. But maybe they've got far too many op ed writers who are of one political persuasion and not enough balance. And so that's just reflected also, I think, in just the general coverage. I mean, it's no secret, is it, that mainstream media is populated largely by left wing leaning people. And so that is just naturally going to come out in their stories and in the approach that they take.
[00:03:24] And so, yeah, for whatever reason, there's the lack of balance there. I think we can also critique the media for the lack of critique of the Opportunities Party and their policies. Clearly, the Opportunities Party has benefited massively, just like they did in the previous election. But this time it's really come to fruition from a media that has been willing to give them airtime, the sort of airtime that is never normally given to a minor party that is outside of Parliament, that has never held a seat in Parliament.
[00:03:57] So this is all very strange. And also on top of that, there's just been such a lack of proper scrutiny of, of their policies.
[00:04:06] And I just, yeah, you gotta, you gotta ask questions about why that is. So there's plenty of things we can critique, but one thing I don't think you can do in this case is say, well, this was a media generated coup. No, there clearly was an attempt to change leadership and it was also clearly leaked to the media. And so the media covered it. And I think another important point to note about all of this is, is that the reason why, and I know some people find this frustrating, but the reason why there is so much media interest in the whole question of a leadership change within the National Party is precisely because it is extremely believable given the current state of the National Party leadership.
[00:04:51] And it is like, it's not like someone suggesting that Winston Peters is going to be replaced. Like, if you said that to me, I would think that does not seem even remotely plausible.
[00:05:04] This case with Christopher Luxon, though, it's the exact opposite. And the reason why is because there is such a, a general public unease about Luxon. So there are people obviously who are just hostile because they are not National Party supporters at all. They've got no interest and they're always going to be in that group of people who are hostile.
[00:05:26] There are those people, though, and I think this is A large number of them who could go either way with their vote, who are not finding Christopher Luxon appealing. And even those people who are naturally in the demographic where you would expect Nationals supporter base to come from, where they've drawn from in the past, it is also clear that they're losing that group or they've got a whole lot of people in that group who are effectively voting for Laxin because they think the alternatives are a lot worse. But they're not voting for Laxin because they think, man, he's a strong, confident leader who was just leading this party with vision and clarity. And there's no confusion, there's no uncertainties, no gaffes. It's the opposite. And so that's why this sort of a story does have truck, because it is highly plausible that smarter minds within the national party, and I say smarter minds than I, are looking at the situation and they are realising they need to do something about it, there needs to be a change.
[00:06:31] The reality is that whether it's now, and obviously that didn't happen now, but. Or whether it's in the future, there's going to be a change. Luxon is not going to be. Well, I mean, never say never, I suppose, in politics, but I would be highly surprised if Luxon is still the leader of this party in a year or two's time. I would be extremely surprised if that was the situation.
[00:06:56] Something must have changed radically if that is the case.
[00:06:59] On the question of timing around the coup, I think the timing of the coup was. I think it was, this was the right time to do it. And I say that this is me just thinking purely strategically, but if you're going to actually change your leadership, you've got now less than three months until the election.
[00:07:19] And so what you get is you get two benefits. One benefit you're going to get is you're going to get a bump from a new leader. And I'll talk about who I think that would have to be to actually get that bump, but you would get the bump from a new leader. Like a leadership change always gives you a bump. You also get a bit of an advantage here that you can do a bit of a narrative and an agenda reset. And it wasn't like they'd have to change major things, but certainly a change of leader gives you a big advantage in that regard and certainly from the narrative change perspective, that's a really big deal. So it gives you that advantage. And the other advantage, of course, is that there's not really enough time for people to see the new leader making too many gaffes. And so they don't really get to see all the faults in foible's of the new leader. And so you sort of reap that benefit as well. So timing wise, this would have been good timing. Remember what happened in the lead up to the 2017 election where Jacinda Ardern took control of the party.
[00:08:24] And they did that with only seven weeks to go until the election, which is less time than what national is looking at right now. And yes, they didn't come back with a higher voter percentage than the National Party, their main opposition. They were put into power because Winston chose to go with the Labor Party.
[00:08:45] But their polling situation, their public perception, the narrative completely shifted. Their polling improved massively. They would have done far worse without that. And so I think that's what you've got to take into account in this situation. There was also, it does seem, if I understand, we're still not clear, this is the reality of these kinds of situations. There's lots of speculation, there's lots of court and palace intrigue about who might have been involved and how it all went down. But it does seem that today a clearer pattern is emerging.
[00:09:17] And what it seems is that there was a, what you would probably call a very genteel and prudent process that was begun to start the process of a leadership change.
[00:09:32] But then someone prematurely leaked that to the media and that really sort of threw a spanner in the works and created a whole new firestorm that probably wouldn't have unfolded the way that it did.
[00:09:46] So that definitely had a bearing on how things turned out, that's for sure. I think I'd also say too be wary of any MP who's claiming they had nothing to do with it.
[00:09:58] The reality is that that's exactly what you are supposed to say for your own self preservation. If you're a politician in moments like this, it's not great. And it's the thing that always turns me off about politics is the toxic nature of it, the lack of virtue and how you get this sort of brutal barbarism. And you know, you'd throw your best friend under the bus if you needed to for your own self preservation. There are not enough MPs, this is the problem. There are not enough MPs who actually have that fundamental sense of virtue about them and who don't do those kinds of things. And it seems that if you get involved in politics, the more successful you are at it, like I, I could probably name on and count Them on one hand, the people that I know who are MPs who have not fallen into that particular trap. But it seems the longer you stay around that place, it's sort of like a brood of vipers and, and it starts to rub off on you and it's very easy to fall into that trap and the longer you hang around, the more likely it is you'll start doing that yourself if you're not already sort of prone to that stuff. But sadly, there's just too much of that toxic stuff and self preservation becomes the norm and the order of the day. So I would say I'm just wary of anybody who says I had nothing to do with it. Unless I know that person and I know their character, then generally I just assume that may or may not be true. That might not be the correct story, because if your self preservation is your primary goal, you're not going to be publicly saying, yeah, I was involved in this.
[00:11:25] And especially if you're also thinking about winning an election because that's a big part of your self preservation, no good if you don't get your seat back. And so you've got to try and preserve the party along with you at the same time. And so, yeah, I just say you've got to sort of take that with a grain of salt. I've heard from plenty of politicians now who've told me that's exactly what the expectation is and that's what people do in these situations, even to the point of just outright lying.
[00:11:49] They'll say, yeah, no, no, no, I had nothing to do with it, or, you know, you know, I fully support the leader, even though in actual fact they don't really support the leader and they want the leadership changed. On the question of leadership change. And I'm going to get to Chris Pink in just a moment. For those who are wondering, Luxon is not going to change. And so I've seen quite a few people in light of this saying, well, Luxon needs to start doing X or now that this has happened, Luxon needs to change this or he needs to do this.
[00:12:16] And here's the thing, a lot of what people have said in those kinds of public statements and social media posts and other things, they are not wrong in what they are claiming. But the point is this, Luxon is not going to change.
[00:12:31] I personally thought that Luxon might change. I thought the sort of cut and thrust and the baptism of fire that was the election campaign, last election, that might actually bring out a new side to him, or I thought that also Becoming Prime Minister would actually probably, or possibly bring out another side to Luxon that we hadn't seen before.
[00:12:53] But it's clear now after several years that that is not the case and it's not going to change. If he hasn't changed by now, it is highly unlikely that we're gonna wake up tomorrow morning and discover that Christopher Luxon has suddenly become this new visionary, strong, confident, vibrant, charismatic leader. It's just. I just don't think that's going to happen. And so when I see people making those kind of public statements, even though I agree, yeah, you're right, he should start doing this or stop doing that, whatever is they're saying he should start or stop doing, the fact that people are saying he needs to start doing X or stop doing X, that is proof that, that he's not the right man for the job.
[00:13:38] That is telling you that something is dysfunctional, something is wrong with his approach to leadership and what he's doing in that role.
[00:13:50] And the fact that you're saying he needs to start doing something and these things are normally serious things, they're not minor things like, I think he needs to start wearing a different colour of tie.
[00:13:59] It's the big stuff, the important stuff.
[00:14:02] It just seems to me that, yeah, there's no indication that that is going to happen because there's no indication that Christopher Luxon, like, what you see is what you get, it's what he is.
[00:14:14] And that's fine. From what I've heard from people who know him personally, he does seem like a genuinely nice guy.
[00:14:21] The issue is whether or not he is suitably qualified to be a, a Prime Minister and be the leader of the National Party. That's a separate question. So there are plenty of nice people out there and hopefully I'm a nice enough person in your eyes, but I'm. I don't think I'm qualified for that role either. So it's, it's just, that's the separate sort of question that, that needs to be asked. And I think the fact that people are saying, you know, major change, X or Y or Z, Luxon needs to start doing this instead, that that's proof that he's not the right man for the job.
[00:14:55] Now, there are also beyond just Luxon, Cause I don't think we can pin this all on Luxon. I don't think that's reasonable either. There are public appeal issues with the top three.
[00:15:05] So if you think about Luxon, if Luxon disappeared, do we really think that Nicola Willis, for example, could be A suitable replacement to lead that party that would then turn their fortunes around.
[00:15:16] I'm not convinced that that would be the case at all.
[00:15:19] What about Chris Bishop? Because he's obviously the third in that trinity at the top three there. Do we really believe that Chris Bishop would make a major change and that there are like, this would be a winning ticket? No, I don't think that would be the case either. I mean, if that was the case, if he was the sort of strong, charismatic guy, it seems to me that there would be no indication whatsoever that he was even remotely close to losing his own electorate seat.
[00:15:48] So no, Chris Bishop, Luxon, Willis, the top three. It's not really like there is a strong level of charismatic public appeal amongst that group with a broad swathe of the New Zealand voting population. So, yeah, it's not looking good. And then, you know, you step outside of that and someone like Simeon Brown, I think in time will be ready to lead the national party. I mean, assuming he wants that and hangs around long enough, but he's just not quite there yet. Like he's not. I think there's probably just a little bit more experience that you'd need to step into that role. I think he'd be more than competent when that moment arrives though.
[00:16:33] So, yeah, I'm. That's why I'm sort of focusing in on the top three.
[00:16:37] The reality is that yesterday, Christopher Lux and that press conference after they announced the outcome, that was a very dire affair. And in many ways I looked at that press conference and it really spoke volumes to me about the sort of leadership vacuum that we have right now at the top of the country.
[00:16:57] I looked at that situation, these very dire faces. The 75 second message and also a blatant falsehood was told in the press conference when Chris Luxon claimed that he had the full support of his party. Well, clearly if that was the case, then there wouldn't have been an emergency meeting of the caucus to hold a vote of no confidence.
[00:17:18] Like, yeah, it's just everyone knew, everyone, national supporters, national opponents, people who don't care either way, everyone knew that that was just an untrue statement to make. And there's this very dire looking group of people, they're trying to convince you desperately that all's good and well, nothing is rotten in the state of Denmark. It's all good.
[00:17:39] It just wasn't a great look. And it also speaks to the fact that again, the leadership vacuum, it's not just a question of Christopher Luxon, it's clearly that there's a lack of, I guess, enough vision and leadership confidence amongst enough people within that party to recognise and then take the kind of action that they really probably needed to take yesterday.
[00:18:04] There are big issues here. I think the reality is that the race between the major parties, it just shouldn't be this close. It really shouldn't be this close. And that is all down to the Luxon effect.
[00:18:19] It's not something you can blame on the media. Again, people are trying to say, well, this is a media effect. There might be a little bump here or there for the opposition, but the simple truth is that the opposition, like labor, they haven't even had any public spotlight for weeks.
[00:18:34] They've got no real campaigning or no major campaigning they're doing.
[00:18:38] There's just nothing notable going on on the other side of the aisle. And yet somehow they are still in a neck and neck race with the National Party. And it really shouldn't be this way. It shouldn't be this way. This is the Lux, in effect.
[00:18:53] And so this is something that absolutely needs to be addressed and really should have been addressed. But again, there was that sort of leadership vacuum where there's just not enough perhaps sense or vision or whatever to actually deal with it.
[00:19:07] Let's talk about Chris Pink, because Chris Pink leaving, I think, is a great tragedy and I think it's also a disaster in some ways.
[00:19:15] Chris Pink was actually a good man. So those who might have seen some of the reporting suggesting that he was trying to take the top job from south that is like, I would be extremely skeptical of that reporting and I'll tell you why. I know Chris Pink. So what I'm about to say, though, I have not talked to him about any of this, but the reason I'm telling you that I know him personally is because I know his character and I know the man that he is. Chris Pink is not a different man in private to what he is in public. He has great integrity. He's a man of faith, real, genuine Christian faith.
[00:19:55] He has lived that out in his politics. He's a man of virtue. He served previously in the military.
[00:20:01] He also has a law degree.
[00:20:03] He's the sort of guy who's a bit of a rare breed in politics. He has a whole lot of skill sets that you want in a politician. And he is also a genuinely good and virtuous man, a man of good character and his loss will be felt. He was a competent man. For whatever reason, for successive years under different national party leaders, he was overlooked and not recognised as I believe he rightly should have been.
[00:20:31] And it's only really recently that he's been elevated into a more senior role within that party, which is, I think, a great tragedy in and of itself.
[00:20:39] But losing him national is now less conservative and also less competent than what they were before they lost Chris Pink.
[00:20:50] And so as someone who knows Chris and who knows his character, the suggestion that he acted out of his own self interest here and that he just had some crazy rush of blood to the head and he thought, I'm going to be leader, cause that's what I want. If that has happened, then I can tell you right now that Chris has had some sort of mental breakdown, because that is just not Chris Pink at all.
[00:21:20] He has definitely fallen on his sword here, and he clearly has. He was involved, but that's the reality of these situations. The notion of Chris being like the only soul instigated, that's just not how these things happen. Maybe that happens on dysfunctional church committees or private boards or maybe minor political parties where people are just more passionate than they are processing, aware and process driven, you know, and someone stands up and says, I think I'd be a great leader. I challenge the king. That doesn't happen in the big parties. It just doesn't. And it doesn't happen with someone who is both virtuous and highly astute and intelligent like Chris Pink is. So what happens in these situations is a cohort of people begin by having conversations and dialogue about their concerns, and then it moves to the next stage where they begin the process of investigating and even taking action to garner votes and go through the process of a leadership change. So there is a group of people involved in this. Chris has fallen on his sword.
[00:22:27] It is, I think, right to say that he is a scapegoat in one sense, because it's not just him who was party to all of this.
[00:22:36] And others who are now in Parliament are probably feeling quite relieved or maybe they're sweating bullets, I don't know. Depends what their conscience is doing and how concerned they are about their standing going forward. But there are others who definitely have not felt the axeman's swing upon their neck. So Chris really has borne the brunt of this.
[00:22:57] And losing him, as I said, is a disaster. He is a man of character and a man of virtue and. And that's why I think it's also wrong. I'll talk about this in just a second. Just to say, oh, well, you know, this was just self interest, or he's put himself ahead of the country. We'll Come to that point in a second. But let me quote first from Arnie o' Brien who is a New Zealand political commentator. She is centre right, but she is liberal in her view on social issues.
[00:23:22] She holds disagreement on moral questions. That would be disagreements with Chris Pink. But here's what she said. And by the way, this is a common refrain I've heard from people across the aisle who have met Chris Pink.
[00:23:36] Those who have met him know that he is clever, extremely funny, nerdy, and by the way, he is very funny. His Twitter game is just phenomenal and most importantly, a fundamentally good person. He has strong political views, so he's pro life. He has clear moral boundaries because of his Christian faith.
[00:23:55] But he has never needed to regard everyone who disagrees with him as stupid or evil. He is quick witted without being cruel, can laugh at himself and is genuinely interested in ideas. And that is a very good assessment of Chris Pink, I think. And in my humble opinion, and I don't want to glaze him too much, but he's the kind of character who I would compare to someone like William Wilberforce. Now obviously William Wilberforce was a great man of English politics and Chris Pink being the man of humility that he is, he probably would not enjoy the fact that I'm making this sort of comparison. I'm not saying a direct one to one comparison, but what I am saying is that William Wilberforce, for those who don't know, he began his political career before his conversion to Christianity. And before that he was always a very good speech maker. He was quick witted, but he could be quite cruel and cutting with his tongue and. And after that there was a real noticeable difference. Christian virtue became far more dominant for Wilberforce and it really did play out in the way that he spoke to and spoke about people and engaged with them after that. And I often think about that and I think about Chris Pink as being someone in that kind of mold. He sort of. William Wilberforce was really passionate after his conversion to Christianity about restoring genuine virtue and genuine civility and charity back into public life. And I think Chris Pink is someone who is a very good role model for that. And so losing Chris, I think is a really big blow for politics and also for the country and also for the National Party in particular.
[00:25:32] Why did he go? Well, he fell on his sword. He could have named names, but he didn't.
[00:25:37] I think possibly, I don't know. As I said, this is not any inside baseball. This is just me speculating and thinking about if I put myself in Chris's shoes and knowing what I know about him, imagine where you're in a situation whereby you have spent successive years being overlooked by party leadership when you really had important things to contribute.
[00:26:02] You've also spent time already, a lot of time, on the opposition benches. And so you know that that is not an effective place to be. It's not why you want to be in Parliament. You don't want to be on the opposition benches, just collecting a salary and being reactive and then trying to sort of do your best to pick up the scraps in between. You want to be part of a positive and strong momentum to actually do good and to change the country in good ways. So you want to be in government.
[00:26:31] And also the reality is that not just our you looking now at the possibility of your party losing at the upcoming election, that is a real possibility. I think people need to get their head around that fact. This is a tight election and it shouldn't be, but it is.
[00:26:49] And so maybe he's looking that way in the odds and thinking there is a real possibility we would lose here. I'd be sitting on the opposition benches again, and on top of that, for probably a reasonable amount of time anyway, there would be a whole lot of people in my party, potentially around me, blaming me unfairly for this or trying to pin the blame on me and not take responsibility themselves, because he would be an easy scapegoat for that. They'd be able to say, oh, Chris Pink, if he hadn't done what he had done, we'd be in Parliament right now forgetting and whitewashing all of the other leadership failures and all the things that they've contributed to, they just get to blame him as a convenient scapegoat. And so while lesser characters around you are potentially doing that to you, and you're also probably feeling the brunt of that. And the fact that you suddenly find yourself alienated within your own party when you're a family man of faith, why wouldn't you just leave, go and contribute in other ways, as he said in his resignation statement, go back to law, have more time with your family, do something positive and, and more proactive and more fruitful with your life. I, I would certainly that's how I'd feel about it. And so it's quite conceivable that's exactly what he's done.
[00:28:06] The question, though, of course, that, you know, some people have clearly landed in on one side of this issue, but the big question is, did he put himself first? Or you know, did he, did he put his own self interest ahead of the country and the in the party?
[00:28:20] No, I, I don't think he did. I just. Seriously, if Chris Pink is doing that and that's what motivated him, then he's had a breakdown, something's gone wrong in his life because that is not the Chris Pink that I know.
[00:28:33] Here's the thing. When we hear the word coup, we often think, oh, this is some nefarious self interested conduct by some Machiavellian character.
[00:28:44] But in actual fact, that's not always why people would want a leadership change.
[00:28:50] Sometimes, and I suspect this is probably the more logical conclusion to be drawn here.
[00:28:55] You have astute politicians who are looking at the situation and they are recognising that their party and also the nation they believe is in trouble as a result of their party now being in jeopardy of not returning to Parliament. And so they take this action for the good of the country and for the good of the party. So I'd want to flip that question around, if you will allow me such an indulgence. And I would want to ask did Chris Pink put himself first or did Christopher Luxon put himself first?
[00:29:30] Because I don't think it's unreasonable at all to suggest that Christopher Luxon should have been aware by now that he's just not really gelling in this role as Prime Minister. And there are some big issues here and the country needs stability, it needs strong leadership, it needs something else that for whatever reason, and it's not his fault, he just doesn't seem to be capable of delivering. And so if you're in that situation, what do you do? You step back, you have the humility to step down, you have the courage to step down and you say, yeah, someone else should be actually filling these shoes. And so the question is, should Luxon have actually stepped back about a year ago to give the party every good opportunity it needed to move forward and to actually prepare well for this election?
[00:30:20] Why hasn't he done that? And so I think that's a question worth asking.
[00:30:23] Because if we're going to pose that question, who's been putting themselves first, who's been thinking about the country? I think that's worthy of asking. Like I said, the only reason that this is a tight race is because national lacks strong leadership, it lacks clear and coherent vision.
[00:30:41] What I am hearing consistently from National Party people is that they reckon they've got a good narrative, but that narrative, they're just not telling the story. I'm hearing other people saying that the National Party is spending too much time pitching their ideas to the media instead of to the electorate.
[00:30:58] But all of this points to the fact, for me anyway, that there is clearly a deficiency in the leadership, because this has been going on now for some number of years. You can only blame the media so much. And I say that because, in actual fact, you look around both locally and internationally, and there are other politicians we can point to, party leaders who seem to be able to confidently navigate a rogue media and still not haemorrhage support in the process.
[00:31:28] And that's not happening with national.
[00:31:31] And that should tell you that something much more serious is deficient here. There's a bigger problem as far as their situation and improving their situation goes. I think it probably needed to be Erica Stanford who took the reins of the party yesterday. And I say that as someone who disagrees with her and would not vote the way she votes on certain moral issues.
[00:31:56] But I think Stanford, if you're thinking purely in terms of the future political wellbeing of the party going forward, she was the one who would actually give you exactly what you needed. There'd be a narrative reset. I hate to say it, but there is the fact that there is the feminine card in play, and that definitely has a bearing on modern politics.
[00:32:18] There is the fact that she is a very strong and decisive sort of person.
[00:32:24] And also there are enough unknowns here. This is kind of the Jacinda Ardern effect, where people didn't really fully know her.
[00:32:32] There is almost a type of Erica mania that potentially could develop around this person.
[00:32:39] Not Chris Bishop, not Nicola Willis. But I think definitely Erica Stanford could have actually given them a much better fighting chance. And I think probably they would have seen the bump in the polls. They need to actually see off the opposition.
[00:32:53] It just should not be this close. It shouldn't. There's no way it should be this close.
[00:32:58] The reality is, I think, and from what I'm hearing, it seems that they've basically got themselves caught in a bit of a sunk cost approach to this question. Should we change our leader?
[00:33:11] There was literally even indications online yesterday that they may have even literally sunk costs, as in the fact that we've already printed the billboards and the material and the advertising and it's got Chris Luxon on it, so we can't change for that reason.
[00:33:27] Hopefully that's not true, that there's something very amusing about that idea. And. And you know what's crazy? It kind of sounds plausible with the current state of the National Party. I hope it's not true. But the other way in which the sunk cost approach is at play here is this whole idea, well, no, you can't change your leader this close to an election. In other words, we've sunk all our costs into Christopher Luxon being the leader. We can't change now.
[00:33:54] But in actual fact, you know, Ardern has proved that that's not really something that necessarily has to hold you back at all. And I think if you are prudent about who the new leader is and you actually embark upon a proper process of change, then the reality is you can come out of the other side of this much better off because the situation they're looking at right now, it is dire.
[00:34:21] It's not great. And I'm saying this as someone who actually wants the coalition to, or should I say, maybe there's a better way of saying it. I would not want a coalition of labor and the Greens and Top to take control. I just don't think that would be good for the country at all.
[00:34:39] And so that's who I am. And here I am saying that in actual fact, the situation is dire. I don't think some people were just talking about this like, oh no, I think the coalition's going to get back in again.
[00:34:50] Yeah, I don't see a guarantee of that. And I think, yeah, we've got to be sort of clear out about these things. When I say we, the royal we, I guess those who actually are in charge of these parties, that's not me, that's not my responsibility in this world. But they need to be clear eyed about these things. I guess this election really comes down to a question of there's a test here of whether an uncharismatic middle manager who is commonly prone to gaffes can actually win enough votes to secure you a second term in office. That's the test, I think, that now lays before them and the die has been cast. They've made their decision, they have backed Luxon and they are going to have a crack with this approach.
[00:35:34] I think this is extremely risky. I really do.
[00:35:39] I think it is extremely risky. And even if you're gonna say, yeah, but the media are causing all of this, Brendan, it's the media's fault. I've got no problem with critiquing media conduct, as I said earlier. But here's the thing, like I said, there are other leaders in our country, political party leaders and overseas, who are proving that you can manage a rogue media without haemorrhaging support like this.
[00:36:01] So clearly something more than Just the media is happening here. Secondly, even if the media are a factor here, then you've got to start asking the question at some point. Okay, maybe we actually need to recognize that some things are beyond our control and the way to resolve those problems is not by trying to consistently put a square peg in a round hole. That's luxon. We need to find a round peg to go in the round hole.
[00:36:26] Which, for example, might be someone like Erica Stanford, who suddenly is the thing that solves the media problem for you. If your party leader has become like, or I guess I was gonna say if he's become kryptonite to the media or the media's become kryptonite to him, then maybe you need to get a new superhero and put them in the cape and they can fly your party. Someone who's not actually got the media and media engagement is kryptonite. Because media engagement and narrative is just essential in so many things. But especially if you're doing politics, you need to have strong and clear confidence in the narrative space. And they just don't have that with Laxin.
[00:37:09] And so, as I said, this is really a test of whether an uncharismatic middle manager who's prone to gaffes can win enough votes.
[00:37:16] I don't believe for one second, like some are claiming that what happened yesterday will actually massively improve Luxon's chances. I really don't believe that for a second.
[00:37:26] I really struggle to see why people would suddenly say after what they witnessed yesterday, oh, you know what? I didn't think much of Luxon before, but now I really think he's a great leader, he's the best leader. I'm right in behind him.
[00:37:39] Because the reality is this, people aren't enthused about Luxon.
[00:37:45] They are simply more afraid of the alternative.
[00:37:50] And that is not a safe place for a party to be.
[00:37:53] That is very rarely a sound political strategy. And I think, particularly when you're talking about a second term that you are running for here first term, you can get away with that kind of thing, but I don't think you can get away with it forever and ever.
[00:38:10] And people aren't enthused about Luxon. There might be, okay, to be fair, there might be a tiny minority of really die hard national supporters. The people who just love national, you know, those die hard labor or Green or New Zealand first supporters, the party leader, it doesn't matter who it is, they can do no wrong. They're the beautiful people of this world who are just loyal to a Fold. There might be a minority of those people who think, man, Laxon is amazing. He's one of the best leaders we've ever had.
[00:38:38] But the simple reality is most people don't think that way.
[00:38:42] There are people who look at Luxon and they are not enthused at all. And even the people I've spoken to, so many people who have voted for him in the past and are planning to vote for him too, at the next election, and even they are not enthused about Laxin. They're simply more concerned about the possibility of the alternative government being formed and what that would mean. And I don't think that's an unreasonable concern to have, by the way.
[00:39:11] But no one that I know, and this is. I'm talking here about people who actually want the coalition to return to power.
[00:39:19] No one I know is saying, man, Laxon is phenomenal. He's an amazing leader. He's one of the best. They're just not talking about him that way. And they're not even getting what you might call a Trump type effect out of him either, where you go, oh, gosh, that's not great. But look at the way he handled that media situation.
[00:39:40] You're just not getting any of that either. There's just nothing here about Laxon that is enthusing people. There's nothing here that exudes confidence and a strong narrative, visionary leadership here. There's nothing here that excites a sense of possibility and wonder and hope within people. And that is not a good thing. Not a good thing at all.
[00:40:09] And this really comes back to. And let's wrap up with this. The perennial question, does a political party deserve to remain in power on this basis alone? That we're simply more afraid of the alternative, or we think that they are better than the alternative, rather than they really are a good, strong, visionary party, or they have really good, strong, visionary leadership, and they are really are the best for the country.
[00:40:38] Rather, we think of them as being less worse than the other guys. Does a political party in that situation deserve to keep getting our vote? And do they deserve to remain in power on that basis alone? I'm not gonna answer that question, but I think it is like it's the perennial question that lies at the heart of this. One thing I do wonder about, though, is will important and meaningful change happen at the political level if people keep propping up the status quo based on this type of approach? Because that has been a fruitful vehicle for parties over the years to maintain control of the reins of power, they Say, well, look man, you don't want the other guys in there.
[00:41:21] But there is, it seems to me there's a tipping point happening. And it's interesting because this particular phenomena has been making itself felt in foreign countries and is now starting to happen here, I think, in New Zealand. Well, there are other political waves that have broken on our shores recently that were already, and have already been washing over other countries previously for several years before now. But the one that hasn't really broken yet, and maybe this is starting to break now, is the whole idea that, you know, if the Conservative Party or the Labor Party is not actually doing the job, they're captured by all sorts of other interests and a lack of clear, visionary leadership, then, yeah, you don't support them, you let them fail. Now, I'm not saying that that's the answer here.
[00:42:10] I'm not saying that at all. As I said, I'm not trying to answer the question, but it is the perennial question. And others would say, well, no, I think you shouldn't. You don't take that risk. You got to think for the good of the country, it's better to have, you know, a rotten apple in charge than it is to have, you know, a really, really rotten airborne charge. And I totally, I totally understand that. I said, I, I can see either way on this issue.
[00:42:30] I know, though, that in the market, the general norm is that it's wise to let, generally speaking, to let failing entities collapse rather than artificially propping them up. And so the question is, are we artificially propping up something here that actually needs to undergo change and serious change? And the only way that serious change will come about is if they're actually forced to confront the deficiencies. And it seems in politics the only way that really happens is if you have a major fall from grace, as in power is lost to you in a rather spectacular way, and then that forces you to actually re evaluate and make the changes?
[00:43:07] It turns out there's really. I was listening to Simon o' Connor yesterday and I think he said something very astute, that really this particular problem for the National Party has been going on ever since the John Key days. And when he left, they've never really quite fully recovered from that. And I think this would have been very different if Winston Peters had followed what the majority of the electorate did, and the majority did give their party vote to National. The biggest percentage went to them. If he had followed that and Bill English had been Prime Minister, I think potentially things would have been a lot different for that party. But they lost Bill English. After John Key, they lost a whole lot of Key and very astute and strong and experienced and qualified leadership, all in a, you know, very close proximity to each other. All very suddenly. And I'm not sure the party's ever really fully recovered from that. And Simon talks about John Key's impact upon the party and I think there is something to that. It's probably a little bit like Labour after Helen Clark left. Helen Clark ruled with such a clear, strong and iron fist that when she left, the party sort of disintegrated.
[00:44:15] And Ardern managed to sort of reignite and resurrect their fortunes after that. But now they're in the doldrums again. So maybe this is a problem around the world for the two main parties. They just don't have clear existential vision anymore. It's all about the economy and that's it.
[00:44:34] They don't really have sort of much else to offer. They're not quite sure what the solutions are. They look at something like, there's certain things that make sense probably to a politician and to a political party. You've got to say the right things about climate change and, you know, sound very concerned about it and say the right things and people will, you know, they'll like you. So it's sort of. There's a pattern, there's a script you follow. It's all very, you know, paint by numbers. But really, visionary leadership is not found in the paint by numbers space. Visionary leadership comes outside of those spaces. And it's about the ability to recognize the bigger, deeper issues and questions and to have grappled with and to be able to bring something that is wise and good and virtuous and prudent into that space.
[00:45:16] And like, that's the thing I think it's missing here. And it seems around the world, probably both of the major parties, there's a. They've lost a sense of the existential liberalism has collapsed. The we are now moving into a post liberal order. It's not exactly clear what that all means, but it is clear. The old methods of trying to secure popularity and to get people to vote for you and winning elections, they're not really working anymore because the problems are now so radically massive and different now. Like, think about something, for example, like the massive fertility crisis. Finally we're having public conversations about it. We finally got to the point where a political party in this country, even though there's plenty of things I think we would say about the effectiveness of the proposal that New Zealand first is putting on the table but finally we've actually got a political party that has put a policy proposal on the table and it's not being laughed at, it is being even though people disagree with the mechanism, they know there's a problem and the conversation is starting to happen. It's reached the political level but that's a massive serious issue and it is existential in nature.
[00:46:25] It really goes to questions of hope, of meaning, of anthropology. What does it mean to be a human person? How do we value motherhood and marriage, all of those big questions.
[00:46:34] And I'm not sure either of our major parties have even begun to grapple with or have leadership who have their heads in that sort of visionary space.
[00:46:44] So I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens. Thanks again for tuning in. Don't forget, live by goodness, truth and beauty, not by lies. And I'll see you next time on the Dispatches.
