Comment: National’s division holds back the potential of new leadership

written by u/SoSaturnistic

An effective political opposition is one where caucus members are able to unite and share a common goal, aspiration, and message which generally resonates with the public at large. People tend to not like to see open divisions as it does not bode well for future prospects in government. This issue is faced quite clearly by the current-day National Party under the new leadership of u/Gregor_the_Beggar.

Recently, after being challenged by Newsroom, Gregor outlined some of his goals and aspirations for his vision. Brushing aside and ignoring credible accusations of misleading the public, the new National Party leader instead propagated conspiracy theories about the Wellington electorate and declared his ambition to run a firm centre-right party which focuses on low taxes and a leaner state. Despite his words, however, the party’s moves in Parliament portray a different story.

Mr Beggar’s struggles with his parliamentary party have already come to the fore on a number of issues, including its own policy. On matters relating to the climate, three National MPs rebelled from the whip and two MPs adhered to it. National has always had something of a murky climate policy, but the divisions here are present for all to see when even the leader and the National Party environment spokesperson are on completely different ends of the debate. On trade, something National has historically aggressively pushed to support its economic policy, three MPs took the leader’s stance and two went with it. Even on support for tenants, a way to promote a more moderate image for Gregor’s ‘new look’ National Party, two MPs rebelled and Gregor could only hold on to three members of his own caucus.

In all these cases, a few trends emerge. Two MPs, u/Gregor_the_Beggar and u/BestInBounds, always take the whip. This makes sense given that they are within leadership. On the other side are two MPs of a more conservative bent, u/Griffonomics and u/riley8583. These two consistently break from leadership even on issues which overlap with their responsibilities as spokespersons for the party. Then there is u/superpacman04, who offers something of a middle-ground between the liberal and conservative factions of the party. Usually leaning towards the more conservative end in recent votes, he does on occasion take the leadership’s position.

With clear ideological factions developing within the National Party, one wonders how long the leadership has before a leadership spill is triggered by an increasingly assertive conservative wing. Given the fact that the leadership’s positions often lack the support of a majority of the party’s MPs, it is not outside of the realm of possibility that a party split develops if not the appearance of a new party leader after three this term alone. Even if neither of these options materialise, however, it is difficult to see the National Party putting out anything resembling a coherent vision with such serious division on the big issues of the day, from the economy to the environment. Even if Gregor has now outlined a set of policy goals, it fundamentally lacks credibility until he can get his party to back it.

In the face of the National Party’s crumbling caucus, the government has consistently built upon the policy it announced in its Speech from the Throne during the term. While Gregor’s recent op-ed attempted to portray the Labour-Green coalition as one of inaction, it is indisputable that the government has consistently produced measures that it said it would produce. It is all the more important for National to get its own house in order if it wants to seriously compete with a government that has run a tight ship during this term.