Claire Trevett: Why Simon Bridges Turned Down Judith Collins’ Reorganization Offer

The most important number in the reorganization of the National Party leader Judith Collins is 17.

That is the number of deputies that any rival would need to achieve a change of leadership in the National Party.

It means that it is the minimum number of MPs that you have to keep happy.

That number could explain why Collins has tried so hard to reward one of his apostles, Andrew Bayly, in his reasonable reorganization.

Collins intended to put Simon Bridges in charge of Finance.

Bridges was not the only contender. Several deputies requested it and Michael Woodhouse or Todd McClay were other options.

But Bridges was the best for what National needs now: someone with some grassroots in the bag, a good front-row performer who knows what hard work really means and who can identify problems ripe for political attack.

It is a particularly critical portfolio this period, as the government struggles with the impact of its actions to keep Covid-19 out.

After Tuesday’s caucus meeting, Collins found a precedent for his continued leadership in former Prime Minister Jim Bolger’s poor election result of 1987 before his “landslide victory” in 1990.

Of course, the Labor government is unlikely to deliver anything as useful to achieve this as the splits and divisions caused by Rogernomics were to Bolger back then.

But Covid could lend a hand: Collins pointed to predictions that the worst economic fallout would be 1.5 to 2 years later.

Given that, the best person for the job should have been Collins’ only consideration.

Initially it was because of that better person at Bridges.

However, Bridges turned it down based on his plan to split the portfolio in two.

That was a Finance and Treasurer role, each taking responsibility for different aspects, from taxes to the Budget, which goes to Bayly.

Bridges didn’t think it would work in practice, it was a recipe for mixed messages, it diluted Finance’s role too much, and it would make National look like a fool.

With the option of abandoning his plan and staying with Bridges, or finding another Finance spokesperson to work with Bayly, he opted for the latter.

Bridges can hardly be blamed for turning down the proposed role, although he undoubtedly knew he risked being portrayed as a tantrum.

Collins’ reasoning for the split was that Bayly’s background in accounting qualified him to handle the nuts and bolts of the portfolio.

She believed that Bayly was qualified to take back the boardrooms, while his counterpart, (Collins settled on Michael Woodhouse), would do most of the work against Robertson in Parliament and the media.

In short, Bayly had the brains, but not the political force.

There seems to be no real logical reason for the split.

It could be a valid move if there was a Treasurer for that person to follow, but there isn’t.

In Australia there are separate positions of Treasurer and Finance Minister, but New Zealand has always had a Finance Minister who manages to do everything quite well.

That’s currently Grant Robertson, who’s not far behind in the portfolio despite his own lack of accounting qualifications that Collins seems to find so critical.

Robertson is unlikely to show much respect for Collins’ decision to reserve Bayly for backroom work, especially since he ranks higher than Woodhouse.

Collins did not want finance to be simply a political prize.

However, you have treated him as one.

Collins was clearly unwilling to sacrifice Bayly for Bridges, but neither did he consider Bayly himself good enough to own the entire Finance portfolio himself.

Collins could easily have accomplished the same end by giving Bayly portfolios such as Infrastructure and Revenue, and as an associate finance spokesperson.

As a result, it seems the main reason Collins went ahead with his original plan was sponsorship – Bayly was one of his loyal fans, and she was being rewarded for it and kept sweet for when the next Race to 17 starts.

It was an inexplicable element in a shakeup in which most other moves can be justified.

They include the decision to demote Todd Muller and also demote Paul Goldsmith, but not so much as to claim they treat him harshly.

Christopher Luxon was wisely treated exactly like the other new MPs: rankless with a small but decent portfolio (local government, in his case).

Unhappy MPs just wait and watch. Fortunes change as leaders change, as Bayly has discovered.

It cost Bridges third place in the caucus and also lost his second Foreign Relations option.

Instead, Bridges took seventh place, as well as Justice, Maori-Crown Relations and Water.

So it was Water for Bridges, but Collins may well find that his remodel does not come to a bridge over troubled waters.