One of the most basic norms of Parliamentary politics is that everything is ultimately about the numbers - the numbers to form a government, through to the numbers to topple a leader. Without the numbers to do things, politicians are impotent and unable to achieve anything, something Opposition parties face every mind-numbing day they are out of power.
Yet that basic point seems to have been either overlooked or not understood by those Caucus members wanting to get rid of Luxon. Making the case against his continued leadership was one thing, made easier by Luxon's recent gaffes, but organising the numbers to make a change became a step too far. With up to four potential challengers, the odds always had to be on Luxon coming through the middle and seeing them off.
His task would have been far more difficult had his critics been able to look beyond their visceral distaste for Luxon's style and agree on a single ticket to make the challenge. The fact they could not says less about the respective abilities of the potential challengers than it does about their competing and uncompromising egos and ambitions, which does not bode well for future Caucus cohesion.
Only once before has National ousted a sitting Prime Minister. In 1997 Dame Jenny Shipley oversaw a Caucus revolt against Jim Bolger while he was overseas, but there were then still two years to run until the 1999 election, not just under three months as at present. The last time National changed its leader this close to an election was in September 1957 when ailing Prime Minister Sid Holland was persuaded reluctantly to stand down after eight years in office to make way for Keith Holyoake (who lost the election three months later).
Nevertheless, despite the unique nature of the current circumstances, there are some wider political implications arising from it.
The most significant relates to the increasing tendency to look to “saviour” leaders to revive a party’s flagging fortunes and the consequent attraction to non-career politicians to provide the answer. Dr Don Brash, who became National’s leader in 2003 after less than two years in Parliament was arguably the first of these. His backers believed that his background as a respected Governor of the Reserve Bank would equip him to provide prudent, “nonpolitician” leadership, but the experiment did not work.
Brash was toppled as National’s leader in 2006 and replaced by Sir John Key. Key had been in Parliament for just four years, following a successful international business career and became Prime Minister two years later. He is the exception that proves the rule because he quickly realised the difference between a successful external career and success in politics and made the adjustment accordingly.
Christopher Luxon had a similarly successful international business career and enjoyed an even more stellar rise than Key to become Prime Minister after only three years as an MP. But unlike Key, he has seemed unable and unwilling to leave his corporate background behind and transition into being an effective national political leader. Luxon’s language and style always come across as much more akin to that of a chief executive rather than a Prime Minister and often therefore out-of-step with the average New Zealander.
Former Labour leader David Shearer, who was parachuted into the Labour leadership in 2011 after two years as an MP, and following a successful United Nations and diplomatic career, is another case in point. He also failed to make the impact his supporters had hoped for and resigned the leadership after just over eighteen months.
The point arising from each of these examples, which all parties need to contemplate, is that “saviour” leaderships rarely succeed. There is no real substitute for solid, political experience. Luxon’s frequent excuse when confronted with situations that had challenged governments of recent years that he “wasn’t around then” is inadequate and leaves him increasingly looking out of his depth. Unlike Key, who went out of his way to learn the reasons why previous decisions had been made, Luxon always seems not all that interested.
For all that, National has now made the choice to persevere with Luxon, at least until the election. But unlike the aftermath of April’s confidence vote, which Luxon interpreted as an unqualified endorsement of his leadership style requiring no change, there will have to be some changes if Luxon’s professed determination to lead National to victory is to be achieved.
For a start, he needs to understand that MMP is about power sharing between parties of like intent to make government work, not single party domination the way it used to be. In that regard, and in the light of recent polling, Luxon needs to revisit his foolish, precipitate ruling out of the Opportunity Party as a potential post-election partner.
After all, the difference between success and impotence in politics still comes down to getting the numbers.
Peter Dunne, a retired Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister, who represented Labour and United Future for over 30 years, blogs here: honpfd.blogspot.com - Where this article was sourced.
Yet that basic point seems to have been either overlooked or not understood by those Caucus members wanting to get rid of Luxon. Making the case against his continued leadership was one thing, made easier by Luxon's recent gaffes, but organising the numbers to make a change became a step too far. With up to four potential challengers, the odds always had to be on Luxon coming through the middle and seeing them off.
His task would have been far more difficult had his critics been able to look beyond their visceral distaste for Luxon's style and agree on a single ticket to make the challenge. The fact they could not says less about the respective abilities of the potential challengers than it does about their competing and uncompromising egos and ambitions, which does not bode well for future Caucus cohesion.
Only once before has National ousted a sitting Prime Minister. In 1997 Dame Jenny Shipley oversaw a Caucus revolt against Jim Bolger while he was overseas, but there were then still two years to run until the 1999 election, not just under three months as at present. The last time National changed its leader this close to an election was in September 1957 when ailing Prime Minister Sid Holland was persuaded reluctantly to stand down after eight years in office to make way for Keith Holyoake (who lost the election three months later).
Nevertheless, despite the unique nature of the current circumstances, there are some wider political implications arising from it.
The most significant relates to the increasing tendency to look to “saviour” leaders to revive a party’s flagging fortunes and the consequent attraction to non-career politicians to provide the answer. Dr Don Brash, who became National’s leader in 2003 after less than two years in Parliament was arguably the first of these. His backers believed that his background as a respected Governor of the Reserve Bank would equip him to provide prudent, “nonpolitician” leadership, but the experiment did not work.
Brash was toppled as National’s leader in 2006 and replaced by Sir John Key. Key had been in Parliament for just four years, following a successful international business career and became Prime Minister two years later. He is the exception that proves the rule because he quickly realised the difference between a successful external career and success in politics and made the adjustment accordingly.
Christopher Luxon had a similarly successful international business career and enjoyed an even more stellar rise than Key to become Prime Minister after only three years as an MP. But unlike Key, he has seemed unable and unwilling to leave his corporate background behind and transition into being an effective national political leader. Luxon’s language and style always come across as much more akin to that of a chief executive rather than a Prime Minister and often therefore out-of-step with the average New Zealander.
Former Labour leader David Shearer, who was parachuted into the Labour leadership in 2011 after two years as an MP, and following a successful United Nations and diplomatic career, is another case in point. He also failed to make the impact his supporters had hoped for and resigned the leadership after just over eighteen months.
The point arising from each of these examples, which all parties need to contemplate, is that “saviour” leaderships rarely succeed. There is no real substitute for solid, political experience. Luxon’s frequent excuse when confronted with situations that had challenged governments of recent years that he “wasn’t around then” is inadequate and leaves him increasingly looking out of his depth. Unlike Key, who went out of his way to learn the reasons why previous decisions had been made, Luxon always seems not all that interested.
For all that, National has now made the choice to persevere with Luxon, at least until the election. But unlike the aftermath of April’s confidence vote, which Luxon interpreted as an unqualified endorsement of his leadership style requiring no change, there will have to be some changes if Luxon’s professed determination to lead National to victory is to be achieved.
For a start, he needs to understand that MMP is about power sharing between parties of like intent to make government work, not single party domination the way it used to be. In that regard, and in the light of recent polling, Luxon needs to revisit his foolish, precipitate ruling out of the Opportunity Party as a potential post-election partner.
After all, the difference between success and impotence in politics still comes down to getting the numbers.
Peter Dunne, a retired Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister, who represented Labour and United Future for over 30 years, blogs here: honpfd.blogspot.com - Where this article was sourced.
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.