Written By:
- Date published:
3:17 pm, April 18th, 2026 - 36 comments
Categories: campaigning, Christopher Luxon, election 2026, jobs, labour, leadership, mark mitchell, national, national/act government, nz first -
Tags:
My hunch is that Luxon stands down as Prime Minister, to be replaced by Mark Mitchell.
Here’s why I think that.
The reshuffle that saw Luxon persuaded by Mitchell and Brown to have Simeon Brown take over Energy and also become Campaign Manager makes a lot of sense for National. Brown is apparently their star Minister, and our future as well as this election, is going to be totally dominated by energy issues.
Mitchell has put his hat in the ring before, so he definitely has leadership ambitions.
The way the numbers stand at present, the current coalition is likely to continue to be led by National and to form the next government. We could expect National’s numbers to bump up, and Mitchell is the most likely to be able to contain Winston Peters’ ambitions.
It would also make sense for National for them to call the election early. Urgency to get on top of the issues could be seen as reasonable, given that we are facing certain recession for some time to come, and possibly even depression.
It also makes political sense from the National Party’s point of view. Labour would be caught on the hop, having little time to promote whatever policies they have been developing. Their campaign so far has been heavily reliant on attacking Luxon.
It’s not an outcome I welcome, but I can see why it may come about.
I’ve got a different read as I don’t think the fundamentals favour a leadership change inside National.
Luxon is unpopular and not especially effective, sure. But in a coalition context, that weakness is actually doing some work. A stronger leader, whether that’s Mark Mitchell or someone else, may fix National's internal issues. But it also can radically shift the balance of power across the whole coalition.
ACT and NZ First both have a vested interest in the shape of National’s leadership. And I don’t think either David Seymour or Winston Peters would be enthusiastic about a Prime Minister who’s better able to control the agenda and rein them in.
Right now, a weaker, more cautious National that struggles to assert itself arguably suits both partners. It gives them more room to push their priorities and extract influence.
So while Luxon’s leadership is clearly a liability, it’s also sort-of load-bearing. Replacing him introduces risk, not just for National, but for the coalition as a whole.
The more likely and safer bet is sticking with him and hoping economic conditions improve just enough for the coalition to limp back with a narrow majority. That’s not as difficult as it might seem if National continues to hold onto enough soft Labour voters.
What soft Labour votes is National holding onto? Soft Labour voters are consumed with their own economic prospects and not much else, hence the shifting allegiance and thin grasp of the wider good.
On the economy, the government (that is National, and specifically Luxon and Willis) have failed miserably. They insisted on hand braking themselves, the public service, Wellington, businesses, the economy, everyone really. Young people are leaving in droves. Enterprises are closing. Research, science, arts and entertainment, journalism are all told they are worthless. Education and health are under enormous pressure and under continued threat.
No matter how much they try blame others and global winds, soft Labour voters are firmly choosing Labour right now, not National.
Have you even seen the polls?
I think you’re overlooking the fact that voting patterns under MMP are rarely straightforward, and the paths to government for the two major parties aren’t symmetrical.
Labour has the harder job here. NZ First is not, for now at least, a realistic partner for them, which leaves National with a broader menu of coalition options.
All it takes is a relatively small shift, say 5%, to leave them without a viable path to 62 seats, assuming TPM creates an overhang.
And if you’re a National strategist, that probably looks safer to manage with a shaky Christopher Luxon than by gambling on an unknown leader and risking further instability inside the coalition. Because they don’t need to dominate, or even necessarily "win". Under MMP, all they have to do is deny Labour a path to forming a government.
That might work Res, except both National and Labour are still stuck in a kind of FPP doom loop where they only look at their own numbers and sod the rest of the parties.
The result is that the Nats will probably chuck Luxon even though on the latest polls the COC would win the election. Similarly Labour will keep Hipkins despite the fact that under recent polls they will not form the government in November.
Strange but true.
OMG on the last 15 years, the Greens only ever get to 10% when Labour suck.
2011: Labour 27%, Greens 11%
2014: Labour 25%, Greens 10%:
Sucked both times
2017: Labour 36%, Greens 6%
2020: Labour 50%, Greens 7.9%:
Labour formed government both times
2023: Labour 27%, Greens 11%:
Chucked out of power.
2026: Labour 35% and heading up, Greens 7.8% and falling
It's a pretty consistent picture. When Labour are upwards, Greens are down.
Don't for goodness sake make the mistake that there's a solid 10% Green support in NZ. Whatever the Greens are doing right now, they need to reverse and improve.
I think that might have been a for a different comment?
GP aren't on 7.8%, the trend has them just above 10% (although tbf, it's probably lower than that because the Roy Morgan tends to over estimate their vote).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2026_New_Zealand_general_election
I wasn’t talking about the Greens at all in my comment.
But given the comments above, Curia tends to underestimate the Greens.
The Greens excluding Curia are polling 10.8% according to The Daily Blog, which refuses to use Curia because they are not members of the Research Association of NZ.
And I repeat, the Greens have averaged 9.5% in the last five elections. Chloe is popular and is as good a leader as they have ever had. Marama is solid.
I think Ad was referring to a comment in another thread?
except when it overestimates. If we are going to exclude Curia on that basis, we should exclude Roy Morgan for its general overestimating.
Afaik the RANZ membership issue with Curia was their polling on gender, and the problem was with the way they framed the question. I've not seen anyone suggest their polling methodology beyond that is either inaccurate or corrupt. I don't trust DPF, and the question framing is something easy to check, but if there is a problem with their general methodology I'd like to see it.
Yes, but the claim originally was they have 10% core base. I don't think that is true. What Ad is pointing to is the L/G swing vote. GP gets more when Labour are doing badly. That's been my observation too. I don't think those are Labour votes, I think they are centre left swing votes up for either party.
From memory, polling of support (rather than voter intention) for the Greens is much higher than 10%, but that drops during an election, it doesn't translate into votes. There's probably a pattern there around controversies. People vote for competency and the Greens have dropped the ball a number of times. I don't think that's the only dynamic. We should go back and look at the polling when they were in the Alliance.
I don't rate Swarbrick in terms of the kind of leadership I want teh Greens to have rn. I used to think of her as PM material, but in the years when people were pushing for her to be co-leader, I was cautioning about not pushing her too early. I think it was too soon. But the party needed to test the 'we should go radical' theory, that's what is happening, and it's definitely testing them.
There's a link between the chaos of MPs in recent years and the culture in the Greens. The main issue I have with CS is she doesn't seem to take feedback well, and I hope that's not true within the party.
If it weren't for the urgency of the polycrisis, I would be ok with the Greens testing teh radical theory and working through the issues over time. But the radical theory isn't translating into votes, and I haven't heard anything in a while about the plan to ignite a grassroots people's movement. What happened to that?
I will still vote for them and I believe NZ will be better off with a strong Green presence in a centreleft government. But the hour is getting very late.
Explaining that further. If we want the Greens to be a radical leftgreen edge, Swarbrick is good. If we want the Greens to eventually be a major party, at this time she's not. You and I might like her and her politics, but the more centrist swing L/G voters are going to be a bit shy. And that's where the Greens need to grow their vote into permanent base.
The other option is the Greens go for the non-vote. Maybe their social policies will do this, but the perception of them as a middle class party puts some brakes on that. Most people don't vote on policy detail. The Greens have the best leftwing policy in parliament, costed too, and that's been true for a long time. It's not enough. People vote for competence, something they can relate to, and policy bullet points that would improve their lives. Swarbrick isn't going to appeal to a wide audience on to the relate to aspect. She used to, but something has changed.
This struck a chord with me. Personally, I’d agree and I base my vote largely on overall policy and competence to sell & implement it, as far as I can ascertain that. I cannot stand some politicians and party leaders, especially how they talk and sound, so I stick to written material and preferably stuff that’s not specific to a person (e.g., policy) although I do like to read a good speech (are they even written by the politicians giving the speeches?). However, I think for many voters it’s a rather complex mix of policy & shared values, competence (of individuals & party as a whole), personal resemblance & identity & similarity, and socio-economic status (class) & background, to name just a few, plus partisanship & general bias and capture by populist rhetoric & propaganda that’s influenced by emotional sensitivity (e.g., fear, anger, envy, etc.), naivety & gullibility, and poor information/mis-information/dis-information.
I think my ‘ideal candidate’ would be someone who’s him-/her-self, whatever that means, and shows personal integrity in word & deed. And my ‘ideal party’ would be a group of such people who come together under a banner for more or less the same reasons and going, more or less, in the same direction with sound justification, a clear vision, and flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances (i.e., open-minded and willing to take feedback and self-correct).
I’m not particularly keen on the party system and the disproportional power they wield, in my view – they can become little bureaucracies, fiefdoms, with their own internal rules & rulers that are more interested in advancing party power than serving [all!] the people. I’ve commented several times previously on Simone Weil’s work “On the Abolition of All Political Parties” but also Friedrich Hayek opined that “any group of people [cannot and must not justify the presumption] to claim the right to determine what people ought to think or believe” (https://thestandard.nz/the-second-major-offensive-of-neoliberalism-in-new-zealand-since-the-80s/#comment-2023478) – there’s a libertarian in me.
With respect you are being a bit naive there Weka.
"the Greens have dropped the ball a number of times"
"the chaos of [Green] MP's in recent years"
You appear to be buying into the Herald and ZB's attempts to beat-up issues in order to smear the Greens.
Nobody can predict mental health problems or MP's dying. Genter has been one of the best performing MP's in parliament over many years-the media never mentioned this their attacks on her for a minor error. Attacks based on gender politics causing a Green MP's resignation are abhorrent.
Which radical theories are you talking about? You don't give up on radical ideas just because people aren't yet buying into them. For instance the Green's Wealth Tax. (Personally I don't think this is radical)
People used to laugh at and belittle the theory of climate change championed by the Greens. Now it is widely accepted. The solar panels that I campaigned in support of with Green friends in Sydney in 1983 are now being installed in massive quantities around the world. EV's, long championed by the Greens, sold 86,000 units in the UK last month.
Chloe is a great campaigner and now she is also an experienced leader. She will take Peters and Jones on at the election.
that's an odd thing to say given I've been politically blogging about the Greens for a decade. My record shows you are wrong.
I'd appreciate it if you would stop parsing my comments through some imaginary 'anti-green' lens, and understand that I believe that critique of the left builds a better left. I don't listen to ZB, and only read NZH if there is a reason to. My ideas have developed from deep green thinking, being part of debate among green thinkers, being a commenter and then author at TS, and long debate culture on twitter. MSM isn't my main source of information although I will reference it for fact checking and to talk about perspectives.
I said "the Greens have dropped the ball a number of times". I wasn't referring to things that have happened with Genter at all.
We can't necessarily predict mental health problems, but we can lessen the political fallout by creating cultures that allow for people to be honest and supported in their struggles. Parliamentary politics are brutal. I doubt that Ghahraman suddenly became mentally stressed overnight and the Green caucus is a high stress work environment just like other caucuses.
The main issue I see is that the party's approach to MP selection and support has been a problem for a long time. I don't blame the Greens for Ghahraman's shoplifting. I do think they tend to gloss over problems or ignore them at times. It's why their selection process has ended up being so poor.
Hence Darleen Tana (they simply didn't do due diligence). And Doyle. I completely agree with you that the right's attack on him was abhorrent and one of the worst examples in modern political history.
I also think they were incredibly naive, and this is the problem. He was told to sort his socials, but it was left up to him and he intentionally didn't. That's why he's out of parliament. You can't control the right. You can however prepare for what they do, and this is what I meant by the Greens dropping the ball.
They were unprepared in two main ways.
1. they left an MP to manage his own social media and make boundary decisions that would blow back on the party. He failed to protect the party, and they let that happen.
2. the Greens are in a liberal, pro-gender identity bubble and appear to have been blindsided. I saw the public side of it unfold in real time on twitter, was shocked but utterly unsurprised. Most of the left was surprised simply because they've insulated themselves from the gender/sex wars. The rest of us understood what was going down and what needed to happen to protect the party (and Doyle). The Greens didn't do that.
Doyle was fundamentally unsuited to being an MP. He couldn't put the party first (likewise Tana), and he thought it appropriate to push the queer boundary while associate spokesperson for early childhood education. Whatever we might think about the righteousness of his personal politics, it was incredibly politically inept. It played right into the hands of the right muckrakers, including political opponents in NZF. You can cry foul, but that doesn't change the pragmatics of the situation.
The Green Party let all that happen. Think I'm wrong? Imagine how Helen Clark would have handled a similar situation in Labour.
None of what I have just said is ZB anti-green clickbait.
this is a good example of part of the problem for the Greens, from a post last year. Davidson is excellent in the BHN video, but I don't think that is translating into the mainstream. Atm they will be preparing for this years' budget and the election campaign. When I talk about them dropping the ball in the past, I mean things like improved selection process. Their policies and position still work for me, I am critiquing their organising and comms. The Greens knew there was a problem with their selection process, which is why they reviewed it last year.
https://thestandard.nz/the-green-budget/
I'm not talking about radical theories and ideas. I'm talking about the theory that the Greens should proactively drop their centrist working positions and be more radical. This was the whole driver for challenging Shaw's co-leadership and then his subsequent resignation. It was an intentional move within the party to shift from Shaw's 'let's work with the mainstream', to Swarbrick's 'we need to go radical now'.
I was mostly supportive of the move, although I think Shaw is a massive loss for the party and parliament in general. The Greens needed to test this idea (that the party should be overly radical) that had been causing conflict in the party. They're doing that now. I don't think that has translated into votes yet. Like I said in my original comment, I think as a long game it has merit, but we are very short on time now.
The two main areas I see the Greens have made the most progress are:
It's possible that the Greens will have a third major influence, which is making radical politics acceptable at the parliamentary level. I don't know if that's happening yet. I think this election year will be the big test.
When I say they dropped the ball, I mean all those things would be further ahead if they had handled Turei's speech, Ghahraman's problems, Tana, Doyle differently. The key here is to what extent they are learning from their mistakes. They clearly learned from the Turei year, and they've apparently fixed the selection process (my guess is they're also going to supervise MP socials), I'm doubtful they've learned much on the gender/sex wars issue (I hope I'm wrong) and Peters is gearing up to make this an stick to beat them with.
Agree with most of that. Especially that the gender/sex wars issue, while being very worthy, has the potential to lose votes. Keep the strong policies but downplay it as an issue.
It's not easy to handle issues well when there is a hostile MSM out there with no moral compass. Especially where a very right wing Canadian billionaire has just increased his stake in the NZ Herald to 20%.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/590821/nz-based-canadian-billionaire-jim-grenon-becomes-nzme-s-largest-shareholder
I don’t think MSM serve democracy in NZ particularly well. Clickbait and the shareholder imperative rule. But I do think they are equal opportunity and will attack whoever gives them the fodder.
Some MSM are biased one way or the other. I’m grateful for Newsroom, Spinoff, and still RNZ.
On, off, on again, off again – stirring the cuilture wars 'pot'.
https://thestandard.nz/open-mike-08-04-2026/#comment-2059740
On again! Third time's a charm?
Winston First beats this up ad nauseam – will the Greens ever learn?
For the country, it's a bad time for a change. A new, late-middle-aged, white guy getting his hands on power is going to want to assert his dominance and that's going to come at the expense of making the carefully considered move. And this is a time when carefully considered moves are vital.
My take is that Luxon will be rolled on Tuesday, but without any clear successor emerging from the fisticuffs.
In sheer desperation caucus will opt for a complete outsider – my pick is Carl Bates, with Maureen Pugh as deputy PM and finance minister.
Reasoning: Bates has 25 properties, so must be a successful businessman – and that has a lot of appeal to National’s donors. He also, by and large, hasn’t said anything in all the time he’s been in parliament, so the Natz hope there’s no skeletons in his many closets. Winstone and David will also approve of him – another nonentity and, in their terms, another pushover.
Maureen will be persuaded to abandon retirement and become deputy and finance minister. After all, anyone who’s been struck by lightning three times must be able to manage an economy better than an English major.
And, in case there’s any doubt – /s.
To be fair, being f#$%^ing useless obviously doesn't disqualify you from being leader of National Party.
That would probably be an improvement but I think it is unlikely
"Pugh" most commonly refers to … New Zealand politician Maureen Pugh, or a variant of "pooh" (an exclamation of disgust).
So, yeah.
We've been here before
When he jumps, the board goes, poing!!
Bishflap & Nicky No Boats will be hoping so, if Lux jumps or is pushed. Hang on Lux!!
It will disenfranchise a whole load of kiwis too. I can see why a right wing Government that does not give a damn about letting all kiwis vote would think this is a good thing.
I am surprised Mark Mitchell keeps putting himself forward. Given his professional and personal history there have to be credible allegations waiting to come out. It seems super high risk for both him and the party.
Mitchell? I think, "thick-lip".
Why? Surely not as in: "What a full fortune does the thick-lips owe / If he can carry 't thus!" (Othello, Act1 Sc1)
Mark Mitchell for PM ? That is wrong on so many levels. It would be promoting someone who is as out of touch as Luxon and has about the same low level of charisma.
Then again maybe not so wrong after all.
Mitchell? Eek! It's bad enough having the Bald Ego represent us, let alone someone who could do with elocution lessons! His "Moy kwesschun us …" as an opposition spokesman at Question Time is permanently etched in my mind.
Luxon just needs to harden up and ride out this leadership turmoil, and wait for the next one. He has my full support to continue as leader
: )