Who could replace Christopher Luxon as Prime Minister and National Party leader? – Audrey Young
THE FACTS
- Prime Minister Christopher Luxon faces the challenge of fluctuating poll numbers.
- Chris Bishop and Erica Stanford are considered potential successors.
- Mark Mitchell is among those to have competed for the leadership in the past.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon had a reasonable week last week. There were no shocking press conferences and no horrible polls; just dealing with a potential energy crisis that threatens life as we know it.
If the Iran war drags on and on, and if he maintains a credible response to it, Luxon may represent the stability people crave in a crisis, and there may be no repeat of 10 days ago, when party support sank to 28% and it was reported he was considering his future.
But if National’s polling continues on a downward trajectory, and one horrible poll becomes four, five, or six stranded in the mid-20s, he will eventually be forced to do the right thing and step down. Of that, there is no question.
In the interim, Luxon must say he will lead the party into the November 7 election – because to do otherwise would appear defeatist.
The question is who would replace him. Luxon’s deputy, Nicola Willis, is too closely associated with him and with bad news generally. Simeon Brown, the party’s unexpected fix-itman, at 34, is still too young. The pair of them together could have a chance to lead the party in the future, but not this year.
The two most likely candidates, Chris Bishop and Erica Stanford, have their qualities, but neither is the complete package.
Mark Mitchell is even less complete, but he has charmed his way into being an outside chance.
Mark Mitchell
He is an emergency option only, the one who might be called upon if the other two fought their way into a state of paralysis. His role as Emergency Management Minister has allowed him to look, sound and act with decisiveness and empathy.
He, along with Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, have done well on law and order. And he has form. He put his hand up to compete against Simon Bridges for the leadership in 2018 but then withdrew, and he stood against Judith Collins in July 2020 when Todd Muller resigned suddenly.
The MP for Whangaparāoa, Mitchell has a high likeability factor. He is known as one of Parliament’s nice guys and has friends across the aisle. Retiring Labour MP Peeni Henare, in an exit interview last week, nominated “Mitch” as his favourite MP from the other side of the House.
His biggest failing would be his lack of financial literacy. A Prime Minister is expected to be across all issues of the day, including the economy and the global economy, and to be able to speak about them in a way that doesn’t affect confidence.
While the factions in National are not a primary concern, his conservative credentials would certainly make him an acceptable deputy for either Bishop or Stanford, who are both liberals. He is, by the way, the grandson of the arch conservative in Muldoon’s cabinet, Air Commodore Frank Gill, who once held East Coast Bays.
Chris Bishop
Bishop has more urgency to seek the leadership because he is at risk of being tipped out of his marginal Hutt South seat, and he might not get a list place that’s winnable under poor polling.
By contrast, Stanford has a safe seat in Auckland’s East Coast Bays.
He is more job-ready than Stanford in terms of being able to walk into the top position with the ability to traverse a breadth of policies, including economic ones.
He has managed a broad range of portfolios, including social (housing) and economic (infrastructure) and is an Associate Finance Minister. He is a superb communicator, tells it how it is. He has a huge capacity for work, a formidable intellect and can think on his feet. He is a good debater in the House and one of the few who can give a rousing speech without notes.
He has strategic smarts, having learned at the right hand of Sir John Key’s right-hand man, Steven Joyce, and is National’s campaign chair, a job he had last election as well. He is already playing a leadership role in the party, as Leader of the House and the election chair.
He is not buttoned up. He expresses himself freely, be it about his family, his taste in New Zealand music, love of sport, or his dog Ladyhawke. He is New Zealand’s equivalent to Boris Johnson in terms of dishevelment.
He is flawed, makes mistakes and admits to them. He will turn 43 in September.
But while he has all the competencies for the job, his vulnerability is in Auckland, where vulnerabilities count for a lot.
He has been tone deaf to the importance of house values to Auckland voters. And even if he was happy for values to fall, it is sacrilegious to actually say it. His political management of the housing intensification issue in Auckland has not been flash either, although he has a fan in Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown.
While Bishop’s competencies suggest he should be the frontrunner to replace Luxon, his colleagues will be wary about whether Auckland would take to him.
It certainly doesn’t rule him out of contention, but it could be a factor in hesitancy to elevate him.
Erica Stanford
Stanford has time. She has a safe seat in East Coast Bays, and whether or not National wins or loses the election, she has a chance to become its leader next term. If Luxon manages to hold on as Prime Minister through, and possibly because of, the current global crisis, he still may not last in the leadership beyond a year.
His problems are not likely to go away. If Bishop and possibly Willis were wiped out in a poor election result, but the party retained power, the leadership could still be ripe for the taking by Stanford.
Right now, Stanford’s problem is the inverse of Bishop’s. She does not have an Auckland problem, but she has a competency problem, at least a potential one.
The hesitancy about elevating her is whether she has what it takes to be more than just a competent minister, but a competent Prime Minister.
She is not used to talking about the economy, and without the ease of doing so, could come across as robotically as Luxon does in reciting his key messages on the issue that matters most.
She is not completely divorced from the business world – she interacts with business leaders on immigration as well as education issues. And she is said to have impressed the Auckland business community. But the leap to leader is a huge one, and she might be better suited to growing into the role rather than being thrust into it in the midst of a political crisis.
On the other hand, Dame Jacinda Ardern rose to the challenge successfully when thrust into it in 2017, and the comparisons between Stanford and Ardern are obvious. Certainly, she is likely to rate better with women and with young voters than Bishop.
Unlike Bishop, she is buttoned up. She is not the free-ranging sort. She is organised and diligent, disciplined and controlling. She is more of a sole operator rather than one who works the back bench.
The one question that should perhaps be borne in mind is which MP would pose the biggest threat to Labour? Which contender is most likely to draw support away from Labour?
It is unlikely that Labour would give a straight answer to that question, but the probable answer is Stanford.