To make matters worse for Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, his net favourability rating now stands at minus twelve percent, just eighteen months into his premiership. This is what prime ministers usually see after years in office, not in their first term.
But Luxon was unfortunate never to have had a traditional honeymoon period to start with.
Consider New Zealand’s previous prime ministers. Helen Clark entered office in 1999 with lukewarm support, but polling showed a thirteen-point jump in her preferred prime minister rating within months. John Key’s support climbed from forty to fifty-one percent. Jacinda Ardern saw a ten-point rise.
Even Bill English, after decades in politics, still enjoyed a bump when he finally became prime minister in 2016. Chris Hipkins experienced the same when replacing Ardern in 2023.
Luxon’s numbers tell a different story. His favourability rating has remained flat around 20 to 25%, with no honeymoon bump, and far below the 40% or 50% enjoyed by other recent first-term PMs
The media landscape has not helped him, with many journalists still pining for the Ardern era and treating the election result as if voters had chosen incorrectly. With 81% of New Zealand journalists identifying as left of centre, Luxon faces a fundamentally different environment from other democracies. Unlike Australia, New Zealand has no significant right-leaning outlets to provide alternative perspectives.
Some might also argue that any prime minister would struggle in New Zealand’s current economic circumstances, with the economy in its third year of recession. There is some truth to that. And yet, John Key became prime minister during the Global Financial Crisis and managed the Canterbury earthquakes. Neither crisis dented his popularity. On the contrary, Key’s handling appeared to strengthen public support.
But for Luxon, the businessman-turned-politician, a history of communication missteps may have also played a role. During the election campaign, his claim to spend only $60 a week on groceries was widely mocked. And when a minister resigned earlier this year, Luxon spent days evading questions about his handling of the affair, turning a one-day story into a week-long focus.
Before a trade mission to Japan, he dismissed previous government delegations as “C-list”, implying they were second-rate. This backfired when critics noted his delegation included many of the same companies.
Most damaging for the Prime Minister is that, according to a recent 1News poll, 51% percent of New Zealanders view him as “out of touch.” Only 37% believe he understands their concerns. These perceptions run especially high among young people and Māori voters.
Luxon’s Finance Minister Nicola Willis, formerly a senior executive at dairy giant Fonterra, adds to the Government’s communications challenges. When unemployment hit a five-year high, Willis’s comment that those who lost jobs “shouldn’t take it personally” drew sharp criticism from opposition parties. Commentators called it ‘tone-deaf.’
A recent controversy over butter prices illustrates the Government’s political challenges. With dairy prices soaring worldwide, Willis summoned Fonterra CEO Miles Hurrell to Parliament for what she promoted as a tough questioning session about high domestic prices.
The heavily publicised meeting was meant to show the government taking action on cost-of-living pressures. In reality, it was political theatre that, unsurprisingly, had no effect on butter prices. The handling of the issue caused concern among many New Zealand business leaders who regarded it as a populist intervention.
Communication failures like these have affected the government’s polling. From an Australian perspective, it may be curious that National’s MPs remain loyal to Luxon.
When Kevin Rudd’s popularity collapsed, Julia Gillard moved, only for Rudd to wrest back power when her popularity nosedived. When Tony Abbott’s caucus saw the falling polls, Malcolm Turnbull struck. When Turnbull faltered, Scott Morrison emerged. Australian politics has normalised mid-term leadership changes.
New Zealand operates differently. The last prime minister removed by their party was Jim Bolger in 1997, after seven years in office. Yet Jenny Shipley’s coup did not establish a precedent. New Zealand maintains stronger Westminster conventions about leadership stability.
National MPs, therefore, watch their party’s struggles with limited options. The constraint will be particularly frustrating for several ministers receiving positive coverage for their portfolios.
Education Minister Erica Stanford has been widely praised for her bold and deep reforms of the education system and her clear communication style. Housing Minister Chris Bishop has maintained positive media coverage while handling the difficult housing and transport portfolios. Both have largely avoided the communication controversies that have plagued their senior colleagues.
External criticism from their side of politics will add to the frustration in National’s ranks.
Ruth Richardson, the tough-minded National finance minister from the 1990s who now chairs The Taxpayers’ Union, recently offered pointed criticism. Speaking on the radio, she said her successor, Nicola Willis, should “do an Erica”, referring to Stanford’s decisive approach to education reform. Richardson argued the government is “drowning electorally” and that “tiptoeing around the problems” is not working.
The business community has also expressed impatience. Last year’s “Mood of the Boardroom,” a survey of CEOs in which Luxon participated when he was Air New Zealand chief, rated his performance at 3.7 out of 5. That placed him sixth among politicians, behind several of his ministers.
As notoriously provocative centre-right political commentator Matthew Hooton wrote, “It is Luxon who is driving down the numbers for National and thus the Coalition, and also on net direction. His very personality is harming confidence and thus the economy.”
Still, there is some consolation for Luxon in the fact that history suggests first-term New Zealand governments usually win re-election. The last single-term government in New Zealand was in 1972-75. However, current polling indicates that next year’s election could nevertheless be surprisingly competitive, a scenario few predicted when National took office with ACT and New Zealand First in 2023.
New Zealand voters are becoming increasingly frustrated with their political leadership. Whether the National Party will wait for voters to deliver their verdict next year remains to be seen.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE.
Consider New Zealand’s previous prime ministers. Helen Clark entered office in 1999 with lukewarm support, but polling showed a thirteen-point jump in her preferred prime minister rating within months. John Key’s support climbed from forty to fifty-one percent. Jacinda Ardern saw a ten-point rise.
Even Bill English, after decades in politics, still enjoyed a bump when he finally became prime minister in 2016. Chris Hipkins experienced the same when replacing Ardern in 2023.
Luxon’s numbers tell a different story. His favourability rating has remained flat around 20 to 25%, with no honeymoon bump, and far below the 40% or 50% enjoyed by other recent first-term PMs
The media landscape has not helped him, with many journalists still pining for the Ardern era and treating the election result as if voters had chosen incorrectly. With 81% of New Zealand journalists identifying as left of centre, Luxon faces a fundamentally different environment from other democracies. Unlike Australia, New Zealand has no significant right-leaning outlets to provide alternative perspectives.
Some might also argue that any prime minister would struggle in New Zealand’s current economic circumstances, with the economy in its third year of recession. There is some truth to that. And yet, John Key became prime minister during the Global Financial Crisis and managed the Canterbury earthquakes. Neither crisis dented his popularity. On the contrary, Key’s handling appeared to strengthen public support.
But for Luxon, the businessman-turned-politician, a history of communication missteps may have also played a role. During the election campaign, his claim to spend only $60 a week on groceries was widely mocked. And when a minister resigned earlier this year, Luxon spent days evading questions about his handling of the affair, turning a one-day story into a week-long focus.
Before a trade mission to Japan, he dismissed previous government delegations as “C-list”, implying they were second-rate. This backfired when critics noted his delegation included many of the same companies.
Most damaging for the Prime Minister is that, according to a recent 1News poll, 51% percent of New Zealanders view him as “out of touch.” Only 37% believe he understands their concerns. These perceptions run especially high among young people and Māori voters.
Luxon’s Finance Minister Nicola Willis, formerly a senior executive at dairy giant Fonterra, adds to the Government’s communications challenges. When unemployment hit a five-year high, Willis’s comment that those who lost jobs “shouldn’t take it personally” drew sharp criticism from opposition parties. Commentators called it ‘tone-deaf.’
A recent controversy over butter prices illustrates the Government’s political challenges. With dairy prices soaring worldwide, Willis summoned Fonterra CEO Miles Hurrell to Parliament for what she promoted as a tough questioning session about high domestic prices.
The heavily publicised meeting was meant to show the government taking action on cost-of-living pressures. In reality, it was political theatre that, unsurprisingly, had no effect on butter prices. The handling of the issue caused concern among many New Zealand business leaders who regarded it as a populist intervention.
Communication failures like these have affected the government’s polling. From an Australian perspective, it may be curious that National’s MPs remain loyal to Luxon.
When Kevin Rudd’s popularity collapsed, Julia Gillard moved, only for Rudd to wrest back power when her popularity nosedived. When Tony Abbott’s caucus saw the falling polls, Malcolm Turnbull struck. When Turnbull faltered, Scott Morrison emerged. Australian politics has normalised mid-term leadership changes.
New Zealand operates differently. The last prime minister removed by their party was Jim Bolger in 1997, after seven years in office. Yet Jenny Shipley’s coup did not establish a precedent. New Zealand maintains stronger Westminster conventions about leadership stability.
National MPs, therefore, watch their party’s struggles with limited options. The constraint will be particularly frustrating for several ministers receiving positive coverage for their portfolios.
Education Minister Erica Stanford has been widely praised for her bold and deep reforms of the education system and her clear communication style. Housing Minister Chris Bishop has maintained positive media coverage while handling the difficult housing and transport portfolios. Both have largely avoided the communication controversies that have plagued their senior colleagues.
External criticism from their side of politics will add to the frustration in National’s ranks.
Ruth Richardson, the tough-minded National finance minister from the 1990s who now chairs The Taxpayers’ Union, recently offered pointed criticism. Speaking on the radio, she said her successor, Nicola Willis, should “do an Erica”, referring to Stanford’s decisive approach to education reform. Richardson argued the government is “drowning electorally” and that “tiptoeing around the problems” is not working.
The business community has also expressed impatience. Last year’s “Mood of the Boardroom,” a survey of CEOs in which Luxon participated when he was Air New Zealand chief, rated his performance at 3.7 out of 5. That placed him sixth among politicians, behind several of his ministers.
As notoriously provocative centre-right political commentator Matthew Hooton wrote, “It is Luxon who is driving down the numbers for National and thus the Coalition, and also on net direction. His very personality is harming confidence and thus the economy.”
Still, there is some consolation for Luxon in the fact that history suggests first-term New Zealand governments usually win re-election. The last single-term government in New Zealand was in 1972-75. However, current polling indicates that next year’s election could nevertheless be surprisingly competitive, a scenario few predicted when National took office with ACT and New Zealand First in 2023.
New Zealand voters are becoming increasingly frustrated with their political leadership. Whether the National Party will wait for voters to deliver their verdict next year remains to be seen.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE.
No comments:
Post a Comment