It has become rather fashionable to speculate about the possibility of caucus coups to oust both National and Labour’s fairly unpopular party leaders.
Hopefully our politicians are smart enough to know either would be a stupid idea.
The next election looks likely to be fought on a knife’s edge and commentators have suggested some backbenchers, activists, and party members are getting nervous.
Both Christopher Luxon and Chris Hipkins have poor favorability ratings and neither are the sort of Prime Minister that anyone would want to film a biopic about.
While they are unimpressive compared to John Key, Jacinda Ardern, and Helen Clark, they aren’t obviously weaker than previous contenders: Bill English, Andrew Little, Jenny Shipley, or Simon Bridges.
Many political hacks think to themselves: If only Hipkins/Luxon would move aside, my preferred party would easily sweep the next election with a charismatic leader.
This analysis generally fails to consider whether there is a credible candidate immediately available to step into the role. Dreamers are subconsciously imagining a perfect replacement.
You see this happen in American political polling where a “generic” unspecified Democrat or Republican will outpoll the actual real-life candidate, with their human flaws and downsides.
Crisis candidates
The National Party does have a stronger frontbench than Labour: Nicola Willis, Chris Bishop, Erica Stanford, and Mark Mitchell are all plausible Luxon replacements if push came to shove.
(By the way, National also has a stronger crop of talent sitting on its backbench, which ought to have Labour worried about its longer-term political fortunes.)
But a leadership coup in National would still be very hard. It would have to happen without the caucus cutting each other to bits while fighting for positions in the new administration.
Plus, the new leader would have to call Winston Peters and David Seymour and explain that they are their new boss now. Have fun with that!
It would only be worth the risk to caucus and coalition stability in extremely desperate times, or if the challenger was an unusually popular candidate.
Would Chris Bishop really poll any better than Chris(topher) Luxon?
As for Labour, its bench has been weakened by dismissals, a poor election result, and early retirements. Hipkins is really the only show in town when it comes to leadership candidates.
Carmel Sepuloni isn’t a strong performer, Barbara Edmonds doesn’t want to lead, and Megan Woods has all but announced her resignation. Peeni Henare or Willie Jackson might be interested in the job, but neither are obvious vote winners.
Generally, Keiran McAnulty is considered to be Labour’s Plan B. He’s a good communicator and would be a fresh start, but also a highly inexperienced Prime Minister if elected.
That never stopped Ardern or Luxon, of course, although the former was a superstar and the latter had a substantial business career to draw from.
Still, it’s hard to make a case that McAnulty would be worth the transaction costs of a leadership coup or even a managed transition. He also says he doesn’t want the job.
It would make more sense for him to wait and see how the election plays out. If Labour loses, then he is first in line to assume the leadership and become Prime Minister in the 2030s.
Leadership detritus
History buffs will know there are very few examples of a leader taking over in the middle of a term and going on to win the next election.
Ardern is the famous example, but she took over without having to challenge Andrew Little and was only able to form a Government through coalition negotiations with NZ First.
Christopher Luxon is actually a better example. He became opposition leader in late 2021 when Judith Collins was ousted after trying to pre-empt a challenge from Simon Bridges.
But for each success there are more failures. Geoffrey Palmer, Jenny Shipley, Bill English, and Chris Hipkins are all Prime Ministers who took over during a term only to lose the next race.
The list of unsuccessful opposition leader changes is even longer: Bill Rowling, Jim McLay, Helen Clark, Phil Goff, David Cunliffe, Simon Bridges, Todd Muller, and Judith Collins.
Journalists and news consumers certainly enjoy the drama of leadership challenges but the general public rarely ends up with a favourable view of the victor.
Successful challengers are seen as overly-ambitious, destabilisers. That’s not what voters want after five years of economic and global instability.
As things stand, it is almost certain Christopher Luxon and Chris Hipkins will lead their political parties into the election. Only afterwards will the loser step aside for a successor.
50 Comments
Interesting point about the good Nat backbenchers
Labour does not have them. Is it because the shortage of talent shows up in that so few are elected via the rigors of electorates.
Or. The way to progress is via the list, and the Labs make poor selections because of internal politics.
And. Look at the Greens candidate selection. A fine bunch of turkeys. Laughable.
but are they not positioning for Finance Min?
National's bland, steady-as-she-goes managerialism might work with voters - if what they are doing bears visible results before the next election.
Maybe the last thing we need is some charismatic ideologue/communicator, rather than someone data driven and competent.
Generally, Keiran McAnulty is considered to be Labour’s Plan B.
Good luck Labour. Just my opinion, but I struggle to find a single redeeming feature in this guy.
So painfully average with zero vision.
Which might mean he's perfect to lead Aotearoa.
His flexible concepts around democracy are a definite turn-off.
Unions had the same issue with Andrew
Something we should consider across the Anglosphere. As applicable in the U.S. as Aotearoa and Aussie.
The only thing less popular than Trump is the alternative.
Proof: The Democrats’ Gallup approval rating hit an all time low of 34% in July, and its net rating hovered between -26 and -30.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/692978/democrats-regain-advantage-party-af…
Yes “ what about the alternative” is the pertinent question which is so often disregarded by especially the media in their quest to heat up the contest for the purpose of headlines. However the incumbent usually has a builtin advantage particularly if there has not been any great scandal , any sense of betrayal or obvious disunity on hand. As it is, so far the coalition has performed exactly as any MMP government should, with both alignment and independent voice. As such they can go to the electorate with that stability as a proven track record. Whereas the alternative is a prospect with Labour’s disintegration in 2023 still unrepaired, big questions remain over the disproportionate power wielded by their Maori caucus which when considered alongside the similar elements in the Greens & TPM, is of obvious potential to hold any Labour led government to ransom.
Whereas the alternative is a prospect with Labour’s disintegration in 2023 still unrepaired
Well here's the thing. Essentially National and Labour are one and the same in terms of what the economy is about and how it should be run, and they know it's all about the Ponzi. Any transformation would require an unwind of the Ponzi and that's politically unpalatable and socio-economically too disruptive.
So without wanting to play my Nostradamus card on who will be in the driver's seat, the only real thing that can be predicted is that we will continue to muddle along. My reckon is that the 'playing it safe' option can potentially have the same negative outcomes as Chloe's Mad Max plan.
The economy will determine the outcome of next years election.
For those that actually care about their countries future, the first priority remains a simple choice, as it was in 2023: do you want to live in a democracy or not? The economy is background noise.
Democracy is hard to come by on either side. We either have policies that weren't foreshadowed, or the likes of fast track and use of urgency to shut down public input. Doesn't bode well on either side. And neither will obviously accept constitutional limits on their powers or defer to the public for support on key matters.
It's true that MMP offers a bit of a handbrake, except when all the parties have a common corrupting donor, like we've seen with Philip Morris.
I can only hope that at some point AI will get good enough that someone will write a law that forces all decisions to be rubber stamped by a programmatically neutral and uncorruptible representative of the public.
Luxon is fine by me. I especially like his lists to tick off. And they are.
Well what I'd say to you is...
the first 100 days was hectic, sorted education , ferries cancelled and reordered, but what about the impending recession version 3
," ferries cancelled and reordered,"
Theyve been reordered...why no announcement?
Yeah finally having (and saying out loud) an opinion on Gaza has proved he does have his own brain and is refreshing. He may yet survive.
Leftie wets Nicola Willis, Chris Bishop, Erica Stanford and Mark Mitchell are in the wrong party. National needs to field a conservative leader who stand for equality of suffrage, self reliance and private personal and property rights. All areas being eroded by Luxons "leadership".
Luxon is the classic come from nowhere globalist plant in the mold of Obama and Macron - complete unknowns pushed relentless by the media to be leaders. Luxon wasn't even an MP and media class was pushing him to be leader. We now see why.
“equality of suffrage, self reliance and private and personal property rights.” Neatly put. It is disquieting isn’t it, that such principles, that should be inherently sacrosanct in any society, now have to be emphasised because those in power might quite easily come to disregard them as being of a priority.
Nats heading Left would upset the Labour apple cart
Nats have been desperately trying to head left to decisively shore up their vote, but increasingly restrained by a resurgent Act taking the Nats right-leaning voters. That leaves no choice but to continue trying to move further left to take Labour voters as well as swing votes.
Going to a painful year listening to these tools throwing around more false promises with the public buying into it...
I can see Greens,Act & Maori Party getting an unusually large take of votes due to Luxon and Hipkins.
I think NZ First will grow in % more then Act. with ACT we got "not a debate" about racial issues and some 150k clowns who have not impacted red tape...
At least with Winnie we get international credibility and larfs.
Labour will break apart to Left based Maori party to compete with TPM and a center left new Dems, that could get interesting.
Where do the unionists go?
How long can Winnie keep going, and will the party survive without him?
I don't think he can afford another term in the cold, which I suspect will make him increasingly flexible about who he'll work with for the next 2 elections. Heck maybe Labour will offer him the PM gig as a stick in the works next year...
I will be 81 at the next election and have voted at every national and local election since I was eligible to do so, but I may not vote this time round. I have grown to loathe this coalition, but I find a labour/Green/Maori coalition equally unpalatable. Perhaps i will start the Lunatics Have Taken Over The Asylum party and vote for that.
As you probably know: "people who don't vote get the govt they deserve"
I'm 70 & also have always voted no matter how much I wished there had been better choices.
You are 81 my daughter 18 also hates them all, no policy no guts no vision.
very sad if the old and the young hate politics and the middle are trapped with 1 mil mortgages
kiwikidsnz,
perhaps in 11 years time you will think differently. If by not voting, i get the government I 'deserve', then having voted, I certainly don't think that this is the government the country 'deserves', though you may think otherwise.
In the end, I probably will vote, though with little or no enthusiasm.
Abstaining is a perfectly acceptable option.
Not bothering on the other hand….
Feel much like you do.... I want to vote FOR someone, not simply against someone else. Please Show me someone I actually want to vote for ASAP.
TOP (The Opportunities Party). Someone in the hallowed halls of interest.co.nz likes them and they do seem like a sensible protest to the bigger parties.
Sadly many of us grew up in a Party A or Party B electoral outcome
That's over , MMP produces a much more unpredictable outcome, each party stands on there agenda and a coalition is formed based on negotiation...
I am not sure we are used to this dynamic yet, it would be fair to say Act voters have got more representation then Greens, maybe Shaw was a respectable , the cis male haters not so much.... or the male pussy guy.
I am not sure more parties will make it worse, rather parties need to listern to their voters... even old gray Nats are not happy right now... its yours to lose.
Building relationship will get voters, there is no more relying on left vs right
to many shades of left and right nowdays
making it harder to know if the overall left or right balance will win the next term, most vote in the hope of left vs right...
Place your bets BONZAI.... betting is over.
The development of niche parties has created an environment that breeds extreme positions to both try to differentiate the parties in the marketplace and keep the ever-shrinking memberships happy.
The rigid doctrines involved don't make for collaboration, pragmatism, information driven decision making or anything else adult, and we get to wear the consequences.
New Zealand politics has become an affair of intolerant niche doctrines that have created adversarial parties, with vastly shrunken memberships of zealots who have to be kept happy, so there's no room for negotiation, compromise, collaboration or anything else grown up.
How did proportional representation get us to armed camps shrieking at each other?
Yeah that's how I see it, and I am not even a member of any party
In WGTN maybe that funds the division.
I've never seen any successful business operating for any length of time with such a structure and culture...seen a couple of similarly dysfunctional corporate divisions that didn't last long.
We got here with the development of list MP's - accountable to no one but their party leader. If you aren't accountable directly to the demos you shouldn't be in Parliament. Get rid of list MP's.
The reality is governments, especially cabinets, need at least some technocratic people with some clue. Nerdy accountancy skills and public policy grads are never going to win the popularity contest that is local electorate elections.
I think coat tailing is a bit dicey, but recent governments have delivered us some reasonable list MPs in cabinet. Certainly better than electorate MPs like Uffindell that never faced a real contest anyway.
It's hard to see Chippy taking Labour into the next government. He somehow has to create some sort of credibility between now and the next election. Not fronting up at the Covid enquiry hasn't done him any favors. It's not about whether he has already fronted up behind closed doors but that he's not willing to face the public concerning sensitive topics.
Not a good look.
Maybe, but royal commissions must not turn into witchhunts with partisan criteria and this idea we're trying to "get" someone. That's no better than your average press conference, which a royal commission should not seek to emulate.
It's already clear the anti-mandate bunch aren't going to get the vindication from this inquiry they sought, so they seem to be pivoting to wanting to throw tomatoes at former MPs in the stocks instead. I don't agree that it's necessary to entertain that.
Covid was a virus, it wasn't a situation invented by MPs. Seeking to blame humans for natural phenomena is something that should've ended with burnings at the stake.
No one’s blaming Hipkins and Jacinda for bringing the virus to NZ. Rather if the country is going to have some ‘lessons learnt’ from the pandemic then it would be good to have some open discussion about how decisions were made etc. By not fronting up it appears (rightly or wrongly) that Hipkins has a reason to hide.
He absolutely has reasons to hide. This inquiry is designed to amplify failings already known when the terms of reference were written. This will be used to skewer Hipkins, probably in an election year where he needs to keep his nose clean to have any chance.
For Ardern, as a retired polly, it's less clear, and looks more selfish and about keeping her reputation clean for the talk circuit.
It absolutely does smell bad that they're ducking like this, but equally it's bad the inquiry was framed this way. It means the only learnings will be that hindsight rewards those who do little and therefore have a low attack surface. Brave policy decisions always hurt someone and will often not be perfect. I don't hold high hopes we'll tackle the next pandemic very well if our main learning is to hold people's freedoms above their safety.
The govt of the day was not overly concerned about people’s freedoms. People took a vaccine (with very limited benefits) to avoid losing their job – no freedom there. The govt was trying to prevent the health system being overloaded with sick people. In reality only the elderly, unhealthy (obese etc) or immune-compromised had issues with C-19 – and we knew this from early on. However vaccine mandates were continued regardless.
...except for thousands of health workers secret dispensations
Chippy and Ardern turn up for the 1st "inquiry" incidentally the one where they imposed the terms of reference. A 2nd inquiry inquiry where they didn't impose terms of reference notsomuch. Gutless cowards. Given their actions during the panic did they do anything that didn't maximise the sale of experimental gene therapy/fluff their pillows for the next trough?
Royal Commissions surely are there to establish facts, identify processes etc and do so independently. However whatever might be meaningfully considered is immediately nullified by the term of reference being established politically. If the enquiry is going to be conducted on behalf of the people and in their interests, then the terms of reference too need to be compiled independently. That might involve say the Chief Justice, the Governor General, the Ombudsman and other similar senior appointees.
Hmmm.., well there is a shortage of cardiologists (amongst other specialists) in NZ already, we wouldn't have wanted to lose anymore would we? [devil's advocate...]
A sweeping new investigation led by Dr. Jaehyeong Cho, Dong Keon Yon and colleagues at Kyung Hee University as well as other major Korean centers and published in Scientific Reports (Aug. 7, 2025), has mapped the global pharmacovigilance landscape of two potentially life-threatening heart inflammations — myocarditis and pericarditis — across more than five decades of safety reports. The hypothesis: that certain widely used drugs, including vaccines, are disproportionately reported alongside these conditions. The results are striking, even unsettling to say the least: COVID-19 mRNA vaccines accounted for the vast majority of reported cases in both categories, raising complex, and frankly, troubling questions for clinicians, regulators, and the public.
That's again a hindsight outcome. We went into covid with an influenza strategy that called for social distancing and contact tracing. In countries struck before us it appeared influenza strategies weren't effective due to covid's ability to survive longer in the air. We needed to do something we had no plan for.
We then discovered that China's lockdown strategy seemed effective, so we just copied it for lack of a better idea, authoritarianism and inflexibility included. Bending those rules, as the US did, seemed to make it ineffective. Early deaths in the US and India were extreme and not confined to the elderly and weak. But the reason we continued to lack much respect for freedoms is largely because we continued to follow China's model which seemed effective.
In the UK recall how Boris Johnson was effectively fired for ineffective lockdown strategies that he himself flouted. That's the other end of the spectrum from what we're trying to criticise our leadership for.
Eventually even China realised they were being silly with their continued strategy, but that again required experience with newer variants.
The next pandemic may well kill half the people it touches. There have been such outbreaks in some countries in recent years. We can't simply presume that nothing as bad as covid will come again and plan on that basis. The Public Health Act has always been one of the most draconian bits of law on our books, for good reason.
Only in NZ...Kiwi as...
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Labour leader Chris Hipkins have teamed up for display of ‘dad dancing’ at Indian Independence Day celebrations in Auckland.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360793770/christopher-luxon-and-chris-h…
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.