Democracy Briefing: Luxon’s enemies are counting

Coup stories about replacing Prime Minister Christopher Luxon are circling again, initiated it seems by his enemies within the National Party. A showdown is reported to be occurring tonight.

The story was broken last night by the New Zealand Herald’s political editor, Thomas Coughlan, who reported that “discontented National Party MPs hit the phones on Monday” after Luxon’s talkback radio captain’s call for a referendum on MMP caught many of his own MPs unaware last Thursday. One unnamed MP confirmed fielding “several” calls about a leadership change and delivered the quote that will define Luxon’s week: “There’s going to be change in the top job. It’s just a question of who is going to be it.”

That MP named senior ministers Chris Bishop and Erica Stanford as the front-runners. Three caucus sources told the Herald both are potential contenders despite their public pledges of loyalty. Stanford has ruled herself out. Bishop, fronting media in Auckland this morning, notably declined to deny there is an appetite within the party for change.

RNZ’s political editor Jo Moir has reported this morning that National’s caucus is indeed meeting online tonight (Parliament is in recess this week), with Luxon’s leadership hanging over the agenda. Bishop appeared to dampen down the rumours of a coup this morning, telling media: “It’s not an emergency caucus meeting – it is a regular caucus meeting in the recess week, so that we can get together and talk about, you know, what we talk about in caucus.”

Yet the news reports have also received unusual reinforcement from figures associated with National and the political right. On X, commentator Ani O’Brien says: “I am clearly hearing the same thing as him” and “I know the reporting to be accurate in this case.” Taxpayers’ Union co-founder Jordan Williams posted an image of a coffee cup being tipped over — a visual joke about a leadership “spill”. Liam Hehir, who opposes replacing Luxon, says he highly doubts Coughlan is simply making the story up. It’s clear that the coup talk has now spread well beyond the press gallery.

However, the Post reports this afternoon that “National MPs have largely gone to ground amid renewed speculation about the leadership of the party.” They report no obvious signs of discontent: “The Post has contacted more than two thirds of the caucus attempting to ascertain how widespread the reported discontent is. Just five National MPs have offered any comment – Shane Reti, Melissa Lee, Carlos Cheung, Miles Anderson, and Ryan Hamilton all told The Post they backed Luxon entirely and were not sure where the speculation had come from.”

Is Chris Penk the stalking horse?

Richard Harman at Politik reports that National caucus members have been pushing for a special meeting on the leadership, with MPs bringing forward a caucus meeting that was previously scheduled for tomorrow. Multiple sources told him the leadership “had been discussed in phone calls all through Monday”.

Harman adds one explosive but unconfirmed claim today. He reports that Monday’s calls appeared to have been initiated by Defence Minister Chris Penk. One source told him the plan was for Penk to act as a “stalking horse” for a wider contest involving Bishop, Stanford, Nicola Willis, and possibly Simeon Brown.

The stalking horse is an old device, most famously used against Margaret Thatcher in 1989: someone organises the challenge, flushes out the numbers and absorbs the damage so the real contenders can keep their hands clean. Stanford, remember, ruled herself out only at the weekend. Bishop and Stanford both pledged support for Luxon earlier this year. If a stalking horse is indeed in the field, those pledges are already being treated as disposable.

Three votes in it: The 27–22 problem

When Luxon called a confidence vote on himself on 21 April, he won it, read a short statement, took no questions, and declared the matter closed. Nicola Willis said afterwards that only the scrutineers knew the tally. The refusal to say more was the whole manoeuvre.

While nobody knew the margin, “I have the support of my caucus” could not be tested. More to the point, no MP contemplating a move could tell whether they were one of a handful of malcontents or one of half the room. Everybody was counting blind.

That protection has gone. It appears a score sheet from the vote may be circulating. Coughlan says that the Herald has been told by MPs that they believed the margin was 27 to 22. The Post reports that the widespread view within the caucus is that April was very close, around 27-22, which as the paper puts it is just three votes in it – only three MPs switching sides would reverse it to 24–25.

Harman was given a slightly different version, 28 to 21, requiring four votes to shift. He points out that the only people who genuinely know are the two tellers, party president Sylvia Wood and Chief Whip Stuart Smith, but adds that “a score sheet can be kept, and it would seem that is what may be doing the rounds.”

If a score sheet is circulating, whoever released it plainly wants National MPs to know how close the April vote may have been. The number is useful because it makes a change look achievable. Harman asks the question that matters, which is why the numbers have suddenly started appearing four months after the event. Nobody leaks a stale vote count for the fun of it, and every wavering National MP now knows how short the walk is.

There is an observation in the Post’s reporting that has been almost entirely overlooked. Within the caucus, a margin that narrow with no declared challenger in the field is itself read as a sign of Luxon’s weakness. If the 27–22 account is correct, 22 of Luxon’s colleagues voted against him even though there was no declared replacement.

There has been no shortage of opportunities for MPs to change their minds since April. Luxon has made a succession of unforced errors, culminating in an MMP referendum announced on talkback radio that his own ministers could not agree was party policy. The party’s attempt to re-establish its fiscal credentials has also been poorly received.

The April ballot was meant to demonstrate that the leadership question had been settled. If the reported numbers are accurate, it showed instead how little support Luxon had to spare.

Bishop or Stanford?

If Luxon goes, two names recur. Bishop is the safer caucus choice: quick on his feet, combative and experienced in political management. But he could be seen as replacing one middle-aged man with another.

Stanford offers the larger public reset. She is less closely identified with the Government’s economic record and probably the candidate Labour would have more reason to fear. She connects more easily with the public and appears less manufactured. But she is much less tested.

The Post also reports today, based on talking to sources within National, “One suggested that the long-unanswered question of whether Chris Bishop or Erica Stanford would take over had been put to bed through some kind of deal, but this remains unconfirmed.”

The paywall now starts partway through all Democracy Project newsletters. Please take out a paid sub if you want to support this service and access the full content, including the following sections: “The two-women option”, “The revolt on the right”, “The case against the coup”, and “What happens tonight”.