It's a victory!

In July 1953, then Premier of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Kim Il Sung, declared victory in the Great Fatherland Liberation War (the "Korean War" to the rest of us).  This was a war he started in 1950 (although he claimed the US started it), and had a clear purpose, which was to obliterate the Republic of Korea (south Korea) and unify the country under his communist rule. 

This was after over 200,000 military deaths and the death of over 1 million north Korean civilians (and likely over 200,000 Chinese deaths, as Mao intervened to deter the US attacking China), and the net loss of 3,900 square km territory.  However, Kim Il Sung treated it as a victory and the Kim dynasty has done ever since.

Sure it lied about why the war started, and it is logically impossible to think that the war was any sort of victory for the north, but at least the Kims have an excuse - they are part of a psychopathic totalitarian dynasty clinging to power.

Trump doesn't have that. 

Sure, 90% of the Iranian Navy has been destroyed, but it is clearly fully capable of attacking ships in the Strait of Hormuz, using small boats, coastal based cruise missiles and drones. The US and Israel have obviously not destroyed that capability.

Sure, most of the Iranian airforce has been destroyed, and its ballistic missile capability has been badly damaged, but it isn't over. Perhaps its nuclear programme is completely, or mostly destroyed, but its motivation to have a nuclear programme will not have abated, indeed quite the opposite.

After all, Kim Il Sung himself also knew that once the Soviet Union collapsed, the only security guarantee the regime in Pyongyang could rely upon is having its own nuclear weapons.  That has been proven, as there is little real chance of the US engaging in a first strike against north Korea, because the risk of nuclear retaliation, whether to the south or to Japan or beyond, is very real.

The Iranian regime has been weakened, it has lost leaders, but it has not loss control of the borders, the mass media or the instruments of domestic repression. It has not been destroyed, but it has been battle hardened and has - rightfully - claimed victory. Victory against the United States is defined as survival. It is not a victory Saddam Hussein could claim, as the Iraqi Government fell completely.  It is not a victory Muammar Gaddafi could claim either (although the regime of Nicholas Maduro is - largely - intact without him).

Trump's claim of victory isn't quite as hollow as Kim Il Sung's, but at best he has diminished and deferred the ability of the Islamist regime to project its terror abroad, and only moderately diminished its capability to project terror domestically.

If the regime remains, it will be more hardline, more focused on advancing terror abroad, including targeting the US, Israel and liberal democracies globally. 

I bet the Cuban regime isn't that worried anymore.

TACO indeed.

What's the role of government in an energy crisis?

For all of the fatuous claims of those who think fossil fuel use should be ended "as soon as possible", we can all see that the world values them, not just to power transport, and provide base-load energy generation in many countries, but to provide the essential materials for a vast range of industrial and consumer goods.  Notwithstanding the nonsensical claims by the likes of Greta Thunberg and de-growth multinationals like Greenpeace, oil use continues to grow worldwide according to the International Energy Agency.  Half of that growth comes from aviation and chemical feedstocks - in other words the use of oil as an input into the manufacturing of everything from pharmaceuticals to pipes to electrical insulation to asphalt and paint. 

Yes there is some substitutability around energy in some sectors. Most obviously in electricity generation, although no single alternative to oil or coal is "ideal".  Hydro-electricity is geographically dependent, nuclear is difficult primarily due to extremely high capital costs and public opposition, and solar/wind power is intermittent (and storage remains expensive).

In transport there have been huge leaps ahead in technology for light road vehicle, and medium weight trucks and buses doing short to medium haul trips are increasingly electric as well. However, it is going to be some years before long haul heavy trucks (and coaches) will go electric.

Aviation isn't moving from petroleum for some time, although hope it being seen in biofuels, that has its own issues. Shipping likewise, which mostly uses heavy fuel oil, is also not moving away from petroleum.  What many activists ignore is that most transport, certainly commercially provided transport, is only too aware of the importance of minimising fuel costs.  Conventional engines have never been more fuel efficient, and that is driven by market factors more than anything. Airlines, shipping companies, trucking companies all want to save on costs, because most of what they do is motivated by profit. 

Private individuals less so because they trade off high capital expenditure vs. lower operating costs, and many don't have much capital to spend on cars, but the incentives are there.  As someone once said, the stone age didn't end because of a lack of stones. Similarly railways did not move from steam locomotives because coal (and fuel oil) were scarce, but because technology made diesel and electric traction more cost effective.  

Outside transport, and outside the wishes of planners hoping people will trade off time and comfort to use public transport and active modes more (which will happen anyway due to cost), the big consumers of fossil fuels are in agriculture, industry and manufacturing, and much of that isn't changing soon.

So what SHOULD government do when petroleum gets more scarce and more expensive?  

1. Not meddle with prices. Higher prices ensure more supply and encourage more supply.  When people face the real price of energy they will take steps to conserve or change energy sources, and trade off whether they think it is a short or a long term saving they get from switching. The idea that politicians or bureaucrats have any clue as to what best meets the needs of everyone using petroleum products now is simply absurd.  High prices are already encouraging people to shift modes of transport, to drive less and consider what their next vehicle's fuel consumption is.  Let that work, and don't listen to the excitable planners who think more needs to be done. A majority of the costs of urban public transport are already predominantly paid for through motoring taxes and rates, as it is already "being encouraged" with fares well below cost.  It doesn't need to be more.

2. Don't get in the way of exploring for more energy.  The Ardern Government's ban on new oil and gas exploration was always an act of virtue signalling to fly a vacuous flag around climate change to the world, even though the impact of no more exploration on climate change is nil.  The even more preposterous argument that "there isn't any more to discover" makes it more ridiculous, because there is no need to ban something that wouldn't happen anyway.  Norway has the world's highest takeup of electric vehicles (96% of new light vehicle sales are EVs) and it is the world's seventh largest exporter of petroleum and gas (and there is bipartisan consensus about expanding it). 

3. That means all energy.  Whether it be wind power, solar power, nuclear power, tidal or coal, government should get out of the way. There are negative externalities with some options, but these should be treated as property rights issues.  Pollution is an escape over property boundaries and permission should be obtained from owners of such property if pollution represents anything from nuisance level onwards.  There should be minimal restrictions on installing solar panels, wind turbines or damning waterways if you own them, and the replacement of the RMA should enable this.  It also means that electricity generators should also be able to plan for future supply.

4. Maintain constructive foreign and defence relations with allies: Freedom of navigation is critical to survival for New Zealand. That means defence matters, including the alliance with Australia in particular, but also other like-minded liberal democracies.  Yes that includes the United States, Japan, south Korea and Singapore. It means that there should be a blue water navy and an air force that is a credible contribution to collective defence of sea lanes. It doesn't mean having to go along with every military action by allies, but it does mean contributing to the defence of allies, and having clear lines about what matters in the national interest. 

5.  Maintain a minimum critical reserve of supply: The International Energy Agency recommends member states keep reserves worth 90 days of supply. This isn't "free" to do, but should be considered a core part of national defence. Without such supply, significant parts of the economy and the public would be in danger.

6. Sell off your ownership in gentailers: As clever as it seemed for the Key Government to sell 49% of three electricity gentailers, it doesn't go far enough. For these generators to build more supply they need more capital, and it shouldn't be constrained by governments having to put their own capital into the three SOEs. Government should state that, at the very least, it is relaxed about becoming a minority shareholder, or better yet just hand over the shares to the general public for it to do with as it pleases. They can sell them or hold onto them. Before that happens, it should break them up. Generation and wholesaling electricity should be separated from retail, so the retail market can thrive. I don't mean the private gentailers like Contact, just the majority state owned ones.  That will stir up the market and encourage investment in capacity, which is just what is needed as more choose electricity over gas and petrol.

I'm old enough to remember how the National Party's greatest conservative socialist, Muldoon, tried to centrally plan New Zealand away from the volatility of oil prices, and lumbered the country with billions in debt for inefficient pet projects. From the Motunui gas to gasoline plant, to the North Island Main Trunk electrification, many Think Big projects were an economic disaster because officials assumed oil prices would remain high perpetually, which was not to be the case.  

The Muldoon government subsidised CNG and LPG conversions for vehicles, and subsidised the roll out of CNG and LPG refuelling at service stations across the country, and by the mid 1980s the growth in demand in CNG and LPG had collapsed. It also indirectly subsidised road use by such vehicles, as fuel duty on CNG and LPG was (and still is!) significantly lower than that for petrol.

In a few months, the US-Iran war will be over and the crisis in fuel prices will have ameliorated, and despite the eager calls by central planners, the best government can do is to 

The climaxes of those who absolutely love expensive and scarce oil

There are people absolutely loving the price of fuel going up and eager for there to be fossil fuel shortages. It’s getting them terribly agitated, in a quasi-sadistic scolding way. “Told them so” said one, “those car fascists are going to pay” said one politician, “if only there were cycleways, the teachers and nurses would use them to get to work” said an earnest unionist. “It’s ironic that the white supremacist genocidal Zionists are helping up” said keffiyeh wearing angry woman.

It started online of course, chatting together getting all excited. “Shortages will show them we were right all along, public transport is better, that’s why we need to tax people more to make it free” said the urban planner. “The people, well I mean they aren’t really human are they, that own Ford Rangers or RAM are going to feel it bad, and they’ll realise how uncool and hate filled such vehicles are” shouted the Greenpeace staffer. “Child murderers!” cried out the neurodiverse kindness campaigners. “They’re not all ACT or Winston supporting straight white men who don’t have degrees though right?” said the elder gentleman who once marched against apartheid”. “No, but 90% of them are” said the suspicious purple haired non-binary student. The university lecturer noted “Look this will expose the far-right white supremacist Zionist Trumpist terror supporters to the mass of good people who support a powerful exemplar of decolonising resistance”, before the photographer yawned and said “steady on now, we need to be practical if we are to free people from the car addiction they don’t want.

A failed list candidate said “Great, even though the climate destroying far-right scum are in power, it’s election year and can get The People on our side.  We can finally show people how wonderful it is to share journeys with others on public transport, or enjoy being with nature in a cycleway”. A sick, sniffing one said “and it doesn’t matter about the Nazi Ranger drivers, all we need is for the Greens to give Labour enough of a boost to kick out Peters and Seymour”.

I might jest, but they really are almost tumescent in their excitement. 

This is the chance, the central planners can take more taxes, they can impose new rules, they can spend more of your money and direct the poor “addicted” car users to the more enlightened future of more public transport use, more cycling, more walking and of course freight should go by rail.  Not having convinced enough people that abandoning driving was necessary to save the planet, they think they can convince people that it is for their own good to abandon their transport choices.  

What do they want? You don’t even need to ask it’s all pretty clear:

• Make driving less attractive. Slower speed limits, remove general traffic lanes, remove parking, tax cars more.

• Tax you more (now or later) to subsidise public transport even more with cheaper fares, despite demand being up and the cost of providing services going up as well.

• Tax you more to subsidise rail freight, because businesses that use it already need a helping hand from… you.

• Tax you more to subsidise people who can afford to buy new cars to buy EVs, and for other people to buy e-bikes. 

Lunatic fringe academic Timothy Welch is one of these people . He’s a senior lecturer in urban planning, which of course is something we need much less of.  He gets republished by leftwing media because he plays to its unconscious bias, as he really knows little about the commercial side of the transport sector and is keen to selectively quote data as facts to support his own point of view.  His claims are mostly value judgment nonsense. 

His latest piece of polemic sees him supporting taxing buyers of petrol vehicles to subsidise buyers of EVs (it wasn't long ago he was bemoaning EVs saying "EVs require the same amount of road space and, due to their increased weight, potentially cause more road damage. But EV owners don’t buy petrol, which means they don’t pay excise tax – the same tax that pays for expanding roads". EV's don't cause more road damage, but then after the Government put EVs onto road user charges he bemoans it making EVs "less competitive".  More generally he supports making new vehicles more expensive (through the “Clean Car Standard”) which helps ensure the vehicle fleet stays older for longer, but Welch doesn’t like cars at all.  He loved that fewer utes and SUVs sold under the Clean Car Standard.  He bemoans the car ownership rate of 815 cars per 1000 people “one of the highest in the world”.  This should be celebrated that so many can afford a car and have the freedom it provides (urban planners aren't big on this), but he ignores that NZ is larger than the UK with 8% of the population. He claims that every decade there is an oil shock, which isn't really true, but even when it happens that all dies down (remember people like him warned us of Peak Oil? That was until fracking discovered more).  The 1979 oil shock one provoked Rob Muldoon to advance Think Big, and every single one of those projects turned out to be a net drain on the economy, because in a few years oil prices dropped right back. Welch doesn’t let that stop his excitement for reducing car ownership.  He finishes with this absurdity:

Every bus electrified, every cycleway built, every train funded is a direct reduction in exposure to the next crisis. The question now is whether New Zealanders begin to treat their car dependence not as a lifestyle choice but as a strategic liability.

What utter rot. Unless the bus is taking people out of cars, and unless a cycleway takes enough people out of driving cars to offset its cost of construction, it does nothing to reduce exposure.  He advocates fully taxpayer funded public transport, which has been shown in multiple examples (e.g. Tallinn, Estonia) to largely replace walking instead of driving (in Tallinn car use dropped 5%, but walking dropped 40%, and car mode share climbed back up because public transport was overcrowded with people riding it for short trips). 

There’s photographer Patrick Reynolds made a name for himself as an urbanist, and has for some years been an activist for the Green-left’s war on private motoring. This is why he was appointed to be board of NZTA in the first term of the Ardern Government, as the Greens strongly advocated for him.  He’s positively excited about the crisis on the Green Party Greater Auckland blog. He says we should think strategically (i.e. don’t just react to the crisis, but think of the “long term”).  His next step is to “rapidly reduce demand” and to “ensure an equitable path”. He said we are “structurally addicted” to driving. Curiously he floats the idea of lower speed limits for everyone but EV drivers, which is nonsense of course. Of course he doesn’t talk about aviation or shipping because These are blind spots because, by and large, governments don’t tax you to pay for their infrastructure, vehicles or services, because you’re willing to pay for them yourself (directly or indirectly through freight).

Of course it is now rounded off by the Greens. Chloe Swarbrick has, finally, taken time out shouting for the destruction of Israel and touting Hamas propaganda to demand "free" public transport and a new tax.

This wont excite the car hating mob though. Nothing gets them over the top quite as much as penalising car driving. Cars, the epitome of individual freedom, expensive capital assets that exist purely to sit idle for the owner to use when wanted, to go when and where they want to go.  So unlike public transport which is planned (!) and scheduled and directed to be a sharing experience, not so fast, not so direct and not so "selfish".  

And No.  Unlike the control freaks, I really don't care how you get around, or how goods get around, as long as people pay for it themselves.  No modes of transport are "bad" or "good", they just are well suited for different purposes. For as long as this fuel crisis continues, people will respond to the price signals in the ways they want.  Some will drive a bit less, some may buy vehicles that use less or no fuel, some will ride public transport, some will bike and some will walk.  Most people are quite happy buying their own cars, fares, bikes and shoes, and the way it SHOULD work, is the more people buy of one mode, the more that can be provided.

Funny how the planners don't really think that should be the way isn't it?

UPDATE: Oh look another one, this time from Professor Alistair Woodward, from the University of Auckland's Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, who RNZ conveniently cited without counter-argument that there should be regulations on people buying vehicles he thinks are bad.  The public health lobby's appetite for micro-managing what everyone does, because a small handful engage in bad behaviour has no end.

Whether your agree with it or not, the US has to win in Iran

Morally it was entirely justifiable to attack the Islamic Republic of Iran. Many will disagree honourably because of concern that the international order, represented by sovereign states with recognised borders respecting each others territorial integrity, is fundamental to international peace and security.  They believe that this order protects peace and supports negotiation and diplomacy as the path to dispute resolution.  However, it is a defensible position that the Islamic Republic of Iran (distinct from Iran the nation) is not deserving of that protection or recognition, because it does not afford that to some other sovereign states.

It is a regime that has spent its entire history calling for death to the USA and Israel, and used terrorist proxies in Lebanon, Israel and Yemen to spread its evil poisonous misanthropic ideology of ultra-conservative Islamist theocracy.  Besides calling for "death to Israel" it has actively spread anti-semitism globally, including hosting conferences questioning the Holocaust.  It has the world's highest per capita rate of executions, killing over 972 in 2024 alone, and most recently reportedly slaughtering tens of thousands of protestors across the country.  Its theocracy includes a morality police dedicated to policing what women wear and how people interact in public, and it uses rape as a punishment of dissident women.

Given its long standing global sponsorship of terrorism (which included the IRA back in the Troubles), its pursuit of uranium enrichment and lack of transparency, it is easy to justify military action to stop it obtaining nuclear weapons. 

Whether or not it was tactically correct for the US and Israel to take on Iran only history will tell.  As much as those against the war will be wanting Trump to lose, to embarrass him, this is a very narrow and suicidal position. The very last thing anyone who supports liberal democracy, rule of law, individual freedom, human rights and civilisation should want is for the Islamic Republic of Iran to defeat the US, Israel and by proxy, the Gulf states as well.

Overthrowing the regime would be a success, weakening it so it fails due to domestic pressure (including from the Kurdish north) would be a partial success, but emboldening it even if its ability to project abroad is significantly weakened, would be seen as a victory for the regime, and a victory for its proxies.

For it would embolden Iran and its proxies to attack not just in the Middle East, but beyond, endangering Americans, Jews (don't even think Iran separates Zionists from Jews). This would make us all less safe, it would embolden Islamists across the world to promote their ideology, and for a few to be willing to use force to terrify us all.  

If the Islamic Republic survives, it will embolden Putin and Xi to give it succour, money, arms and to push on.  Putin already knows Trump wont stop him in Ukraine, Xi already knows the US will do little in the South China Sea, and wonders if he can attack Taiwan with little more than sanctions.

At this stage the biggest risk is that Trump chickens out, and wants a "deal". There is no "deal" with those who want you dead, who want your country dead and another dead.  As much as the international law purists want pontification from the Western world about the legality of the war on Iran (they think it isn't legal), that horse has bolted. 

While it's entirely possible (and probable) the Iranian regime could be replaced by one that is far from ideal (see Iraq, Libya and Syria), it is also likely it could be better.  Better is not wanting to destroy other countries, better is not wanting to fund, train and arm multiple terrorist proxies across the Middle East, and across the world to "globalise the intifada" against the infidels.

Better is not expounding an ideology that is a fundamentalist misanthropic dark-ages view of humanity, as serving a supreme religious leader who sends people to their deaths for the sake of Allah, who restricts music, literature, art, apparel, human relationships and human expression, for the sake of blasphemy.  Humanity, and in particular Europe and the Western world have been spending centuries unshackling themselves from the tyranny of theology.

The end of the Islamic Republic of Iran wont remove this, as there are plenty of others expounding such a view, including some it is attacking, but it will remove the most toxic, virulent and violent example embodied in a outwardly aggressive state.  For it to "win", survive and double down on militarising itself and securing weapons of mass destruction would be dangerous to us all.

Allister Heath in the Daily Telegraph:

Either Donald Trump holds his nerve, crushes the Iranian regime, rides out the oil shock and reopens the Strait of Hormuz, or he and America are finished, exposed as unserious, fickle and incapable of forward planning, a superpower manquée felled by drone-wielding barbarians.

The challenge is Trump’s character, his willingness to accept short-term economic and electoral pain, not America or Israel’s exceptional military capacities. Does the US president, a hawk on Iran for 47 years, have it in him to finish the job, going down in history as the saviour of civilisation from nuclear Islamism, or is he merely the unidimensional man child his critics believe him to be?..

The great danger is that Trump snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. A loss would involve the Iranians shutting the Strait for an extended period, the Americans panicking at elevated oil prices and the US president walking away with a premature declaration of victory. Iran would be bloodied, but unbowed. 

This would be a calamity from which neither Trump nor the West would recover. It would be interpreted by our enemies, chiefly China, North Korea and Islamists, as proof that their stereotype of the average Westerner is correct, that we are coddled, narcissistic consumers who cannot handle even the smallest discomfort.

It would also embolden the West’s defeatist class. Their “analysis” relentlessly asserts that the US cannot possibly win, and dismisses any contrary evidence. Everything to them is a miscalculation; killing Ali Khamenei will backfire, we are told, but not killing him would have been criticised just as harshly.

There is nothing wrong with caution, but some of these people sound as if they want Iran to win. These same experts rightly loathe Putin, correctly seeing him as a fascist monster, who is willing to kidnap children and ethnically cleanse civilians. They rightly support Ukraine, emphasise its victories and urge it not to give up when Russia strikes a blow.

Yet they are not as passionately opposed to the Iranian regime, even though it is just as fascistic as Putin’s. They loathe Trump and Israel. They were willing to suffer high energy prices to help defeat Putin, but cannot tolerate dearer petrol to take out the Iranian regime. Their double standards and hypocrisy are vile.

This is a civilisational struggle, a battle between good and evil. The West must win, or all bets are off...

Luxon or not

It's hardly news to most people, other than some members of the National Party caucus, that Christopher Luxon is not doing well as Prime Minister in convincing even a plurality of voters that he is the right person for the job.  He defeated Chris Hipkins in 2023, and now more people think Hipkins would be a better Prime Minister than him, although I suspect a significant plurality think neither of them are any good (and a smaller number dream of minor party leaders, especially Winston Peters).

Luxon was clearly a competent CEO, and his best characteristic is that he is a good delegator. He has largely left most portfolios to their Ministers, and it shows. The Ministers that are most highly rated are those that have shown results, or at the very least, show competence in dealing with difficult issues.  Regardless of what I think of any of them personally or even some of their policies, it is fairly clear that Erica Stanford, Chris Bishop, Simeon Brown and Mark Mitchell (of the National Ministers, as there is competence in NZ First and ACT as well), have all shown themselves to be able to "get things done".  

I would be one of the first to criticise Stanford in many ways, in particular I think she is just another wet who is almost wholly submissive to the teaching unions, but she has shown both a willingness to effect change and a passion for what she does. Her efforts for curriculum reform, pushing structured literacy and passion for lifting standards is clear.  She projects confidence and communicates clearly and competently, even if I think the government is incredibly weak in opening up the education sector to more choice, this isn't about libertarians, it's about the general public believing in competence and leadership.

Chris Bishop on infrastructure has also demonstrated a commitment to results. You can criticise the replacement of the RMA on multiple grounds (as Nick Clark from the NZ Initiative competently did), but you can't criticise his passionate commitment to a long-term fix of the housing crisis, and his efforts to hold Kainga Ora to account, and take interim steps making it easier to build some homes and infrastructure.  Furthermore, I've never encountered a Transport Minister in New Zealand or anywhere in the world who both believes in road pricing and sees it as a tool to improve conditions for drivers, and to make better investments in road improvements. Whether it is housing, transport or social infrastructure, he doesn't just talk in carefully curated soundbites, he speaks off the cuff and shows a passion for change and results. It helps that he has twice won the usually safe Labour seat of Hutt South (Luxon, Stanford, Brown and Mitchell all have safe seats), which takes considerable effort and shows a cut-through to much more than the party base.

Simeon Brown, despite childish and cheap jibes directed at him on social media, has demonstrated calm, capable competence in delivery. In health, traditionally an albatross around the neck of politicians almost anywhere, he quickly got across the issue of Dunedin Hospital, and made a decision about its future. This matched developing a five-year health infrastructure plan and setting five key health targets. As Transport Minister his great achievements were in turning around the spending plans of NZTA to meet those of the government, and to reverse the widespread speed limit reductions.  He has a financial and economic competence as a "dry" member of Cabinet, which reflects his education and previous career in banking.

Finally Mark Mitchell has been the face of National's commitment to law and order, cracking down on criminal gangs and delivering a demonstrated reduction in violent crime, following increases in Police numbers and corrections staff. Although this was undoubtedly supported by policies from both ACT and NZ First, Mitchell is convincing as a Minister against crime.

All of this contrasts with Luxon.  He is unconvincing, he seems unable to show a serious passionate spirit that chimes with much of the population.  As much as delegating is good, people want a Prime Minister to be across it all. Not necessarily like Helen Clark was (as she was a control freak Prime Minister, micromanaging most policies and not trusting most Ministers on major issues), but at least as well as John Key and Bill English could.  PMs need to be able to ad-lib, to respond spontaneously without briefing notes, based on a philosophical and policy grounding about the direction of government and principles. Some might say it is a bit too much to ask a Prime Minister, especially a National Party one to base thinking and what he says on principles, but principles and passion are where authenticity comes from, and authenticity helps win elections.

People want political leaders to believe in something and to express it, showing their passionate commitment to not just results that people want, but the basis for getting there. Luxon hasn't got it, he didn't have it before the last election, but the public were so fed up with the failed performance of the Ardern/Hipkins years, post-Covid, that they were willing to give him a go. That willingness has been eroded considerably.  There is a chance he can pull together enough support at the election to defeat Chris Hipkins, in part because Winston Peters has clearly positioned himself on the conservative right, and David Seymour continues to have a decent base of support for those who think the National Party is too wet, but that chance is far from a safe bet.  

Much more importantly, New Zealanders deserve a Prime Minister who they have confidence in, who can take a clear, principled stand on issues, without fluffing his lines.  I'm not fussed really if Luxon wants to support the US and Israel over Iran, or oppose it because he thinks it may be against international law, or claim that NZ is watching, not involved and does not want to take a stance out of respect of our allies.  Just believe in something. 

So he needs to go. Stanford or Bishop look like the leading contenders to replace him. Mitchell hasn't the breadth and depth for the role, and Brown is too young and too conservative to attract the non-politically engaged middle voters National needs.  However, Brown would be an excellent Finance Minister.

Stanford is Auckland based, and socially liberal, with the undoubted advantage of being a woman, with a clear, pleasant voice. She would need a deputy who is more conservative and able to moderate concerns she is too wet and centrist. Some may think she could look a little like a National Jacinda, but that is under rating Stanford. It seems unlikely she would characterise herself by emotions and over-ambitious targets.  To address concerns about being wet, Brown would be an ideal deputy to Stanford, although two Auckland leaders is not ideal, it is not as problematic as two Wellington ones.

Bishop, notwithstanding the alleged failed plot late last year, is equally as compelling. Being Wellington based is no asset, but the Hutt is a bit different, and he is much more of an "everyman" able to reach across to a broader group of voters.  He would need a deputy who is not Wellington based, and although he isn't a "wet" at all, he is socially liberal, so a more conservative deputy who is either Auckland or regionally/rural based would be ideal. Brown again would deliver this, although the push for a woman would suggest Stanford could be a choice, two social liberals might grate against part of the caucus.

I've not mentioned Willis although some would suggest she is the automatic choice, as the current Deputy. There is a clear couple of reasons for that. Firstly, she has anchored herself as a Luxon loyalist, it's difficult to see his weaknesses as not reflecting on her. Secondly, and far more importantly, she has not delivered on substance, particularly on the cost of living, but also notably in turning around the economy. Rather she has pushed relatively insignificant policy measures and issues with little real result.  You can predict exactly what the Opposition is going to say, because so much of what she has pushed has delivered little.

I doubt more than 10% of voters could name Family Boost as one of her signature policies, because it's achieved little despite her efforts to publicise the handout.  The Opposition has portrayed her as a harsh austerity Finance Minister, which if it were true, would have demonstrated results, with a path to surplus being sooner (and commensurate impacts on inflation and interest rates). She would have upset public sector unions, recipients of government largesse and leftwing academics, but at least would have some respect from the public for taking difficult decisions that were unpopular with some, for the sake of better long term outcomes.  She didn't need to be Ruth Richardson to just take spending down to the levels (as a proportion of GDP) when Labour got elected in 2017. In reality she has stemmed the growth in government spending, but wears the banner of "cuts" and hasn't been able to repudiate it.  What's much worse than her weakness on spending is the populist hobby horses she has chased to no avail.  The utterly fake dressing down of the head of Fonterra for the high price of butter, when no one credible thought anything could be done about it (bear in mind she used to work for Fonterra as a lobbyist), was cringeworthy. Furthermore, she cried wolf so much about supermarkets so when it was clear that the main solution - RMA reform - was actually out of her hands, and given the price of groceries in New Zealand (when GST is taken into account) is not disproportionate to Australia, she couldn't communicate reality and back down after fuelling hype that delivered nothing.  Finally, while she has claimed credit over lowered interest rates, that all about to reverse, thanks to a lowering dollar and now the war in the Middle East.  She couldn't even get the Reserve Bank's profligacy under control.  The public want action on the cost of living, but few believe she can do anything.

She might think she is entitled to be the next Prime Minister, but it's not clear what she has to offer. Most recently, her speech in Parliament about Iran demonstrated a patronising tone that focused not on the events in the Middle East, but what it means for New Zealanders. In foreign affairs, the public wants someone to talk convincingly about what is happening in defence and humanitarian terms, balancing the death and destruction of war, with the optimism of potentially ending a brutal tyranny, and concern about the end-game and what it means for the people involved.  New Zealanders know they are far away, and they are not just concerned about inflation and trade, they do not just think of foreign relations as transactional, but as a matter of what is right and its global impacts.

So no, Willis is not the answer.  She should not be the next Prime Minister and if Luxon is replaced, she should go too and be replaced, with a Finance Minister who understands what it takes to raise productivity and make New Zealand more attractive for starting and sustaining businesses. It isn't tax breaks for movies. 

Of course nothing might happen. Maybe some National MPs want to retire early (!), maybe some think Luxon is misunderstood and the media is to blame, or the polls are missing those who are undecided and will be drawn to him for stability on voting day.  They are all wrong. Luxon has been a disaster. 

Labour has twice had one-term governments, and twice had two-term governments. National has never had a one-term government, or even a two-term government, but it nearly had a one-term government in 1993.  It was saved not just by the voting system, but because voters rejected Mike Moore's second attempt to be Prime Minister as Bolger, just, convinced voters that tough decisions were made for later gain, which proved to be true.

There is a risk in rolling Luxon (and Willis) that it makes the government look like a mistake from the start, that it draws into question the whole period since the last election.  However that risk is smaller than just fumbling along and hoping Labour will look less credible, and people will be frightened by the Greens and Te Pati Maori. 

With a passionate principled Prime Minister, and a competent, economically literate and sharp minded Finance Minister, a blend of time and courage can convince voters than the National Party has listened and wants to give the public confidence in a new Prime Minister and refreshed impetus to focus on what matters the most to them.  It needs to purge the mediocrity, the man who forever says "you know" (when you know he is trying to convince himself as much as you) and give New Zealanders passionate, competent and principled leadership.  The time for change is now.