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.
11 comments:
When Luxon became PM I was elated NZ finally had a smart, personable, successful, moral, big business manager; as Leader.
Luxon proceeded to knock the national party into shape, win an election, then set a righteous path for the good ship nz.
Lately though Luxons integrity is called into question:
1. The covid inquiry farce. I watched the nzdsos presentation. Instead of reviewing the meta studies presented by nzdsos doctors which show covid was a bad flu exploited by unscrupulous politicians to launder our tax money, Illington launched personal attacks at the doctors then went on to make excuses for the clark advised Ardern’s self-enriching covid response. Now the Luxon government isn’t even making the covid swindlers front the inquiry.
2. The NZ cartels (electricity, banks, supermarkets) continue raping our back pockets unabated despite pledges from Luxon to neuter them.
3. Nicola Willis stays firmly ensconced despite her inability to answer basic public finance questions, and her championing a bill which retrospectively absolved the aussie bank cartel from repaying the millions they stole off kiwis in mischarged fees,
4. Ardern continues her life of luxury whilst working a voluntary job and leaving the publishers of her flopped books in the red, without so much as a question how?
There are a few rays of light.
1. The NZ Cartel mouth piece Hartwich is critical of Luxon so the cartels must be worried.
2. There has been great progress flushing out and stopping the labour hierarchy’s other tax money laundering schemes (consultants, the waiparera trust, and the maori kings family).
3. We still have over a year until the election so Luxon still has time to show he is a man with integrity
The most troubling question is: If Luxon turns out to be another snake oil politician, then WHO ELSE?
But at least hes wealthy and sorted.
It appears from what we hear Luxon is an excellent manager. He has the respect of his colleagues and is focused on his plan/to do list.
But he is not inspirational at all. He lacks the ability to take the audience with him. He tiptoes around things, dabbles on the edges when i think the NZ public want bold actions to take us into the future. Social issues including the treaty are difficult but need to be tackled. I think he believes its a small minority who harp on about these issues, I think he is wrong
Thanks (un)balanced for providing yet more proof that you don't have to be deranged to support Luxon but it ????
Luxon is usually hopeless at communication. His recent expression of views about the Gaza situation was an unusual moment of clarity (regardless of whether or not you agreed with his views). I normally switch him off, confident that if he's said anything substantive, it'll emerge in the news. He couldn't have made Ardern and co. appear before the Covid inquiry - only Illingworth could summons them, and chose not to. But my guess is that they might have appeared live had they thought Labour was in any particular trouble. As it is, Labour has lost a lot of votes from the Covid response and are not going to lose any more on that account. Thousands of complainants there, but all people who wouldn't vote Labour anyway.
Thx Ken S (is there more than 1 of you?).
I love a petty name calling.
It shows there is no valid counter argument and I've activated another labour spin doctor.
Anon.
Who appointed illingworth?
My brief observation of Inquiry hearings proved to me he is not a dispassionate arbiter?
Why not appoint one of the Swedish experts responsible for the lowest covid death rate in scandanavia, which they achieved without locking down their citizens or decimating their economy?
The swedes used a pandemic plan similar to the prepared nz plan Jacinda ignored.
Who set the terms of reference for the inquiry?
Who can change the terms of reference if they want to?
I had great hopes for this inquiry, not so now,
I hope im wrong.
Another enquiry that might disappoint badly : removing Treaty references from legislation ( Potaka and Goldsmith)....... be prepared.
If you were wealthy and sorted, why would you choose to be the prime minister?
Hypothesis: if Luxon suddenly changed tack and became the no 1 champion for equal citizenship ( = anti Maorification), his political ratings might well soar..... he should consider this for a 2026 Coalition landslide.
Power
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.