Bryce Edwards
democracyproject.nz
Dr Bryce Edwards is Political Analyst in Residence at Victoria University of Wellington. He is the director of the Democracy Project.
There are certainly some divisions in caucus over Muller’s forced departure. Following the announcement of his retirement over his speaking to the media, Simon Bridges posted a photo on social media of him talking to journalists, with the line: “Speaking with the press is a normal but important part of being in politics. For me it’s an opportunity to speak not only to journalists, but to all New Zealanders.”
In her article, Trevett outlines the significance of Bridges’ post:
“On any day, it would have been an innocuous post but given the timing some have interpreted it as either a small sign of solidarity with Muller’s plight – or a message that a leader can only go so far in gagging MPs.”
She has also commented that Muller’s crime is hardly that extreme, for which he has paid a very high price:
“It seemed a very tough penalty for what amounts to a low-grade offence. It is not unknown for MPs to brief media, or pass an opinion on someone or something on the quiet. But that falls short of a genuine leak. This was not a leak of information, or of confidential caucus discussions, or even comments critical of the leader.”
But she explains:
“Many of the MPs will be well aware that Muller is simply the fall guy: the one man taking the fall for something a fair few of themselves have done over recent years. Leaks had plagued National for years, and Collins wanted to make an example of someone.”
Trevett has also written about the Muller debacle again on Saturday. She argues that Collins has simply front footed the need to finally deal with all the disunity and ill-discipline in her caucus that continues to plague National, especially the leaking:
“So when Collins was handed evidence of one, she went for the crackdown – turning her policy of crushing the cars of boy racers into a policy of crushing her own MPs who whisper to media. In terms of making that message clear and being seen to flex leadership muscle, Collins will not be totally unhappy that the real reason for Muller’s resignation has made it into the public eye”
– see: National Party leader Judith Collins’ ousting of Todd Muller will have a cost (paywalled).
The problem, according to Trevett, is that although this crackdown might be successful in silencing MPs who are talking out of turn, it might also undermine trust without fixing the actual problems in the party. What’s more, it might be seen by others as somewhat hypocritical:
“she was widely regarded by the other MPs as having leaked, briefed media, and undermined leaders. There was already suspicion among many MPs that Collins effectively pushed Nick Smith out by telling him a media outlet was about to broadcast a story about an investigation into a ‘verbal altercation’ Smith had with a staffer. No media outlet had that story at the time.”
Now there is “a climate of fear and disquiet within caucus” and Trevett argues that “There is only so long a caucus can limp along in that state.” Other MPs will also be worried:
“There is already speculation doing the rounds about who might be next on Collins’ hit list – Collins does not disguise her views of enemies well.”
Also writing on the issue on Saturday, press gallery journalist Henry Cooke is amazed that an MP talking about their party has been so strongly censured:
“The thing is, it is normal. Talking to the media is a huge portion of contemporary politics. MPs, particularly ones in Opposition, talk to journalists constantly, trying to get them to write certain stories or convince them to see the world the way they do. Occasionally those conversations will involve frank views about colleagues, especially when the party is in a bit of trouble”
– see: The only thing worse than a leak is talking about a leak.
Cooke says that the article “wasn’t exactly earth-shattering” and so it’s telling that “Collins decided to go thermo-nuclear”. He argues that it is actually futile and counterproductive for politicians to deal with “leaks” as strongly as Collins has:
“It’s like trying to put out a small bushfire with kerosene: it just gets larger and more dramatic.”
Instead, Cooke advocates the approach that the Labour Government takes with the many leaks that it endures: it simply ignores them, which denies the story further “oxygen”. And, given that further stories have now come out about the disciplining of Muller for talking to the media, he asks of Collins:
“Is she now going to hunt down whichever MPs shared the news of the caucus meeting?”
Newsroom’s Jo Moir has the same reaction:
“If that is the new bar for resigning, then presumably National is on a witch hunt today for whichever MPs promptly fed the details of the late-night meeting to media. The imagery of National MPs, who happily and regularly talk out of turn to journalists, sat in that meeting with their pitchforks crying ‘Shame, Shame, Shame’’ at Muller is irony at its absolute best. Not to mention those who left the meeting and immediately hit ‘press gallery’ on their speed dial”
– see: National’s two-year ticking time bomb.
Moir says that Muller is possibly now a bigger problem for National than before:
“Muller now finds himself in a caucus that has 100 per cent turned on him. He may well find a new gig and leave before the 2023 election, prompting a by-election in his seat. Until then, Collins has on the one hand shown her strength as a leader in getting the caucus to unite behind her, but on the other she’s lit a bomb that could potentially go off at any point.”
According to Moir, the latest episode merely shows how divided the National caucus is:
“There’s clearly a group of MPs within the caucus who are still feeling very raw about the rolling of former leader Simon Bridges. No party, not even Labour with its majority, could function with one group still so angry with another so long after the fact.” She therefore wonders if the current National caucus is just too terminal:
“With so many MPs holding individual agendas in that caucus, it might just take a mass exodus to wipe the slate clean and start again.”
This is also the orientation of broadcaster Peter Williams, who asks:
“how can you take these guys seriously? Is it best that they just fade away and let the political right be filled by some more sensible people?”
– see: National Party in disarray.
Finally, although the problems of the National Party in recent years have seemed to be all about leadership, perhaps it’s bigger than this, with the need for its leaders to have better cabals around them – that’s the argument recently made by Danyl Mclauchlan – see: What if National’s problem isn’t the leadership, but the cabal?.
This article can be republished under a Creative Commons CC BY-ND 4.0 license. Attributions should include a link to the Democracy Project.
Please share so others can discover The BFD.