For many in the public, the constant churn of leadership stories about Luxon must be grating. National supporters will feel it most acutely, because of a sense that the press gallery has decided on its narrative and won’t let go. But the stories only keep running because senior National MPs, including Chris Bishop, keep briefing against their own leader. The journalists aren’t inventing sources. If National MPs shut up, the stories would stop. But they are deliberately not shutting up.
A Zombie Prime Minister
Today’s editorial in The Post put the problem precisely: “Luxon’s nagging unpopularity means there are recurring stories about a potential coup. Even when these fail to materialise, negative feelings still linger. Sometimes the mere scent of a coup is enough to do the damage, and Luxon could spend the next seven months stuck in a limbo between being rolled and being effusively backed.”
Seven months is a long time to lead a government while the question of whether you should even be leading it remains unresolved. Luxon is now something of a zombie PM: neither quite dead as a leader, nor quite alive.
Thomas Coughlan of the Herald has captured the underlying dynamic today. Luxon and his internal detractors, he wrote, are “locked in a staring contest, with neither having the numbers to move decisively.” There is probably a caucus majority for getting rid of Luxon. But there is no majority for any particular replacement for him. That is the essence of the problem.
There are four senior ministers who all want to be PM: Chris Bishop, Nicola Willis, Erica Stanford, and Mark Mitchell. But none of them are willing to back another. And none of them want to make the first move against Luxon, because they might lead to their own demise, and allow one of their rivals to take the crown. So, it’s an unhappy stalemate.
Meanwhile, Luxon’s Chief of Staff, Cameron Burrows, was forced yesterday to spend the whole day on the phone doing the numbers to try and shore up Luxon’s survival.
A party in that condition cannot move forward, and will not cleanly resolve its difficulties. It will just bleed for months.
Bishop ascendant, despite himself
The minister most persistently named as the source of discontent and instability is Chris Bishop. Luxon tried to clip his wings in the Easter reshuffle, stripping him of his roles as Leader of the House, associate sport, and chair of the 2026 election campaign. The effect has been to enhance Bishop’s public presence, not diminish it.
Bishop is the person that is talked about most in terms of giving off-the-record briefings to political journalists against the Prime Minister. And he’s now positioning himself as the most media-available National politician.
RNZ’s Jo Moir sketched the post-reshuffle media tour with quiet amusement: “After being turfed out of his favourite jobs by Luxon in a last minute reshuffle just before Easter, it was Bishop who stepped in to Nicola Willis’ regular Morning Report panel on Wednesday. He also appeared on TVNZ’s Breakfast, and on the 6pm news that night, then he appeared on Newstalk ZB on Friday morning and has the Sunday lead interview slot on Q+A this weekend. For somebody the Prime Minister is trying to give less profile to, he was very busy being seen.”
Bishop denies plotting. He told Newstalk ZB’s Mike Hosking yesterday there was “no coup happening” and that articles suggesting otherwise were “untidy and unhelpful.” Pressed further, he retreated to the politician’s middle ground: “everyone wants us to do better.” No seasoned observer should take the denials at face value. It appears quite obviously that Bishop is now fomenting mischief against his boss.
Luxon would be within his rights to fire Bishop from Cabinet for disloyalty. However, he’s prevented from easily doing this. Bishop is arguably the Government’s most effective minister and has a solid following inside the caucus. From the backbench, he’d be an even bigger threat to Luxon than he is inside Cabinet.The history of pre-emptive purges is not encouraging either: David Lange ejected Roger Douglas and Richard Prebble from Cabinet in 1988 to shore up his position, but hastened his own end.
The Whip who was ghosted
The latest round of leadership instability rumours come from Thomas Coughlan’s scoop yesterday in the Herald about National’s whip, Stuart Smith. As whip, Smith is the formal conduit between the back bench and the leadership. In the last sitting week before Easter, he sought a meeting with Luxon to formally warn him that his caucus support was flagging and action was required. Three sources told the Herald that Smith could not get a meeting with Luxon. Smith went to Nicola Willis instead.
Luxon’s office denies that the Prime Minister ghosted his own whip. A spokesperson told the Post: “The PM has a busy diary, but is always available to MPs… He spent the day with Stuart on Tuesday.” That denial has landed badly. As Coughlan observed, this kind of public denial may help Luxon with the general public, but “they weaken his position in the eyes of the caucus, who know the story to be true, in some cases because they were the MPs who put Smith up to it.”
Equally telling was the speed with which the story was confirmed. Tova O’Brien had the story confirmed from sources on TVNZ’s Breakfast within hours of the Herald publishing. Coughlan’s read was blunt: “that is a testament to O’Brien’s sources and journalism, but to me, it suggests you don’t have to look very far to get this information. MPs are confirming it over their breakfast.”
A caucus that leaks to the press over breakfast is not a caucus in good order.
A Majority, but no mandate
Coughlan has been sharpest on the real analytical question: “We know that Luxon’s support has weakened – and weakened considerably, but we don’t know whether it has ebbed away to the point at which he would lose a confidence vote.” What emerges, Coughlan suggests, is the possibility that Luxon holds his position while having lost his internal authority: “A leader who may have a majority, but no mandate.”
A PM whose own whip can’t get a meeting with him. A PM whose senior minister is saturating the airwaves at a time that his boss tried to silence him. Luxon may technically still lead his caucus. He does not, in any real sense, command it.
Why Luxon will not walk
Luxon’s internal critics would much prefer he read the room and resigned. No blood on the carpet. No messy contest. A fresh start for whoever comes next. Coughlan sees this as the tidy option. But it’s unlikely to happen
“Luxon seems very unlikely to resign,” Coughlan wrote. “He lacks many things, but self-confidence is not one of them. It is not in his nature to quit.” He would only go if confronted with concrete evidence he had lost “not just a majority of caucus, but a clear, large majority.” Short of that, Luxon will fight, and risks being remembered as the leader who clung to power “so long he had to be dragged out of the Beehive by his own MPs.”
Newsroom’s Marc Daalder added an arresting detail today: “Luxon, despite Friday’s appearances, is a supremely confident man. He has reportedly recently stopped reading focus group reports because they reflect criticism about him which he just doesn’t believe.” If accurate, that is an astonishing concession. A Prime Minister who won’t engage with evidence of his own unpopularity has, in effect, stopped listening.
Dr Bryce Edwards is a politics lecturer at Victoria University and director of Critical Politics, a project focused on researching New Zealand politics and society. This article was first published HERE
A Zombie Prime Minister
Today’s editorial in The Post put the problem precisely: “Luxon’s nagging unpopularity means there are recurring stories about a potential coup. Even when these fail to materialise, negative feelings still linger. Sometimes the mere scent of a coup is enough to do the damage, and Luxon could spend the next seven months stuck in a limbo between being rolled and being effusively backed.”
Seven months is a long time to lead a government while the question of whether you should even be leading it remains unresolved. Luxon is now something of a zombie PM: neither quite dead as a leader, nor quite alive.
Thomas Coughlan of the Herald has captured the underlying dynamic today. Luxon and his internal detractors, he wrote, are “locked in a staring contest, with neither having the numbers to move decisively.” There is probably a caucus majority for getting rid of Luxon. But there is no majority for any particular replacement for him. That is the essence of the problem.
There are four senior ministers who all want to be PM: Chris Bishop, Nicola Willis, Erica Stanford, and Mark Mitchell. But none of them are willing to back another. And none of them want to make the first move against Luxon, because they might lead to their own demise, and allow one of their rivals to take the crown. So, it’s an unhappy stalemate.
Meanwhile, Luxon’s Chief of Staff, Cameron Burrows, was forced yesterday to spend the whole day on the phone doing the numbers to try and shore up Luxon’s survival.
A party in that condition cannot move forward, and will not cleanly resolve its difficulties. It will just bleed for months.
Bishop ascendant, despite himself
The minister most persistently named as the source of discontent and instability is Chris Bishop. Luxon tried to clip his wings in the Easter reshuffle, stripping him of his roles as Leader of the House, associate sport, and chair of the 2026 election campaign. The effect has been to enhance Bishop’s public presence, not diminish it.
Bishop is the person that is talked about most in terms of giving off-the-record briefings to political journalists against the Prime Minister. And he’s now positioning himself as the most media-available National politician.
RNZ’s Jo Moir sketched the post-reshuffle media tour with quiet amusement: “After being turfed out of his favourite jobs by Luxon in a last minute reshuffle just before Easter, it was Bishop who stepped in to Nicola Willis’ regular Morning Report panel on Wednesday. He also appeared on TVNZ’s Breakfast, and on the 6pm news that night, then he appeared on Newstalk ZB on Friday morning and has the Sunday lead interview slot on Q+A this weekend. For somebody the Prime Minister is trying to give less profile to, he was very busy being seen.”
Bishop denies plotting. He told Newstalk ZB’s Mike Hosking yesterday there was “no coup happening” and that articles suggesting otherwise were “untidy and unhelpful.” Pressed further, he retreated to the politician’s middle ground: “everyone wants us to do better.” No seasoned observer should take the denials at face value. It appears quite obviously that Bishop is now fomenting mischief against his boss.
Luxon would be within his rights to fire Bishop from Cabinet for disloyalty. However, he’s prevented from easily doing this. Bishop is arguably the Government’s most effective minister and has a solid following inside the caucus. From the backbench, he’d be an even bigger threat to Luxon than he is inside Cabinet.The history of pre-emptive purges is not encouraging either: David Lange ejected Roger Douglas and Richard Prebble from Cabinet in 1988 to shore up his position, but hastened his own end.
The Whip who was ghosted
The latest round of leadership instability rumours come from Thomas Coughlan’s scoop yesterday in the Herald about National’s whip, Stuart Smith. As whip, Smith is the formal conduit between the back bench and the leadership. In the last sitting week before Easter, he sought a meeting with Luxon to formally warn him that his caucus support was flagging and action was required. Three sources told the Herald that Smith could not get a meeting with Luxon. Smith went to Nicola Willis instead.
Luxon’s office denies that the Prime Minister ghosted his own whip. A spokesperson told the Post: “The PM has a busy diary, but is always available to MPs… He spent the day with Stuart on Tuesday.” That denial has landed badly. As Coughlan observed, this kind of public denial may help Luxon with the general public, but “they weaken his position in the eyes of the caucus, who know the story to be true, in some cases because they were the MPs who put Smith up to it.”
Equally telling was the speed with which the story was confirmed. Tova O’Brien had the story confirmed from sources on TVNZ’s Breakfast within hours of the Herald publishing. Coughlan’s read was blunt: “that is a testament to O’Brien’s sources and journalism, but to me, it suggests you don’t have to look very far to get this information. MPs are confirming it over their breakfast.”
A caucus that leaks to the press over breakfast is not a caucus in good order.
A Majority, but no mandate
Coughlan has been sharpest on the real analytical question: “We know that Luxon’s support has weakened – and weakened considerably, but we don’t know whether it has ebbed away to the point at which he would lose a confidence vote.” What emerges, Coughlan suggests, is the possibility that Luxon holds his position while having lost his internal authority: “A leader who may have a majority, but no mandate.”
A PM whose own whip can’t get a meeting with him. A PM whose senior minister is saturating the airwaves at a time that his boss tried to silence him. Luxon may technically still lead his caucus. He does not, in any real sense, command it.
Why Luxon will not walk
Luxon’s internal critics would much prefer he read the room and resigned. No blood on the carpet. No messy contest. A fresh start for whoever comes next. Coughlan sees this as the tidy option. But it’s unlikely to happen
“Luxon seems very unlikely to resign,” Coughlan wrote. “He lacks many things, but self-confidence is not one of them. It is not in his nature to quit.” He would only go if confronted with concrete evidence he had lost “not just a majority of caucus, but a clear, large majority.” Short of that, Luxon will fight, and risks being remembered as the leader who clung to power “so long he had to be dragged out of the Beehive by his own MPs.”
Newsroom’s Marc Daalder added an arresting detail today: “Luxon, despite Friday’s appearances, is a supremely confident man. He has reportedly recently stopped reading focus group reports because they reflect criticism about him which he just doesn’t believe.” If accurate, that is an astonishing concession. A Prime Minister who won’t engage with evidence of his own unpopularity has, in effect, stopped listening.
Dr Bryce Edwards is a politics lecturer at Victoria University and director of Critical Politics, a project focused on researching New Zealand politics and society. This article was first published HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.