And then there was none.
Early this morning, the National Party caucus woke up to a nightmare. Todd Muller, its new leader of about 53 days, resigned from his post.
This is not just another spill, coup, or change of leadership. In fact, none of this is routine.
First, Muller has been the leader of National for less than two months, and will now become the leader of the party with the shortest service since its formation in May 1936.
Second, the New Zealand National Party faces an election in just under ten weeks.
And third, whoever leads the party in the elections will face Jacinda Ardern, one of the most popular political leaders New Zealand has produced.
It is an unfavorable time to change the brass plate on the door of the leader’s office.
Why did Muller leave?
In his statement, Muller acknowledged that he was not the right person for the job. Given his background, which included time as an adviser to former national party leader and Prime Minister Jim Bolger, it cannot be said that he came to work uninformed by the unique pressures that come with leading the country’s most successful electoral party.
He also alluded to the cost that the job was taking for his own health and that of his family. It would seem that what was once just a theory about the physical, psychological, or emotional cost paid by political party leaders and their families has become too real.
If so, I imagine that most people might be inclined to say: good decision, friend.
However, sentiment is unlikely to dominate the thoughts of the National committee. Having gone through a divisive leadership change when Muller replaced former leader Simon Bridges on May 22, they will privately be furious at the nature and timing of Muller’s announcement.
National now has to fight, and fast.
A poisoned chalice?
The first task is to find a new leader. Muller’s MP Nikki Kaye is now the incumbent party leader but tainted by her association with Muller. Several other caucus heavyweights, including Judith Collins, Gerry Brownlee, and perhaps Amy Adams, are also in the picture.
But it is difficult to think of a more challenging set of circumstances to assume the leadership of any political party: a hugely popular prime minister; a global pandemic; a divided party that is filteringly disastrous and has trouble identifying the ethnic origin of its own people; and a time frame that is not as tight as it is stifling.
National’s campaign strategy (and the inner circle around the responsible leader) also needs tweaking, if not a full reset.
The party has long proclaimed its credentials as a competent economic administrator, but it becomes very difficult to see how the word “competent” can now be part of the party’s rhetoric without triggering widespread laughter.
And aside from general considerations, there are a myriad of operational details that need to be changed (at no cost), including campaign fences (some of which are already on the fences) and pamphlets featuring Muller. and Kaye.
Who benefits the most?
It is difficult for the Labor Party to think of a better time for this to happen. Yesterday, newspapers, websites, and social media were full of news that the Serious Fraud Office has launched an investigation into donations to Labor ahead of the 2017 election (to go with those already underway in the first national and New Zealand matches). Today’s news is wall-to-wall Muller.
It may also be that National’s mess shows a godsend to the other two center-right parties in parliament, New Zealand First and ACT. Both can win if soft national supporters decide to take their political preferences to other parts of the center-right spectrum.
Alternatively, the soft right could continue to find refuge in Ardern’s Work, as recent polls suggest has been happening.
Why is our policy so toxic?
And so begins the feeding frenzy. However, amid the noise and fury, perhaps we should see one thing: Todd Muller made his captain’s call in the interest of his own health and that of his family.
So before moving on to the next leader, the next strategy, the next policy ephemera that catches our eye, we would do well to pause and reflect on the nature of politics.
What is it about how we do the most humane activities that can cause someone this level of distress? What price do we expect people running for public office to pay? Is our policy broken?
-
Richard Shaw is a professor of politics at Massey University.
-
This article first appeared in The Conversation. You can read the original here.
