Luxon and Hipkins: assessing their leadership capital

Have their careers as leaders peaked? Are Kiwis over them both?

This post is a draft (but with some extra detail) of a finished article that’s appearing on The Conversation. Here I provide some more on the sources and leadership assessment I’ve used in relation to prime minister Luxon and leader of the opposition Hipkins.

Neither leader is riding high in preferred prime minister polls, with both in the low 20s. Most voters, it seems, are unimpressed with the calibre of both leaders.

But leadership isn’t solely an ability that an individual possesses. It depends on the situation and on the stage in a politician’s career. We can think of political leaders having a “stock” of leadership “capital” that waxes and wanes over time. They build up credit or authority with the public, but they have to spend it – and then they lose it as former fans become bored, disappointed or disillusioned.

Any assessment of a leader requires some subjective judgements, but the Leadership Capital Index (LCI) is a framework that’s been used by political scientists for numerous cases. See: Bennister, Mark, Ben Worthy, & Paul 't Hart (eds), 2017. The Leadership Capital Index: A new perspective on political leadership. Oxford University Press. There’s a worked example (on Tony Blair) by the same authors in this paper.

The LCI takes account of a leader’s skills, relations (or loyal following/support) and reputation. It examines more than just the individual: it takes onto account their performance, polling and prospects over time.

While any political career has ups and downs, normally leadership capital would rise early on, and eventually decline, in an upside-down U curve.

I applied the LCI to Hipkins and Luxon. How strong is their political mandate? Both have done time as party leader, leader of the opposition and prime minister. Where, though, do they each stand in terms of leadership capital?

Ideally, the LCI would be conducted by a panel (not just one person), and more than once over a career, but readers are welcome to examine my assessments and comment on my results, as set out transparently.

The LCI’s ten factors are a mixture of objective and subjective political judgements. The results lead to a ranking: Depleted capital (“lame duck”), Low capital (“politically weakened”), Medium capital (“muddling through”), High capital (“momentum”) and Exceptional capital (“political weather maker”).

How did I rate Luxon and Hipkins, then? Leadership capital changes over time, and the LCI takes account of that, so this assessment relates to mid-March 2025.

The Leadership Capital Index of Political Party Leaders

Here are the 10 items and my assessments:

S1 01 Political/policy vision: 1. Completely absent, 2. Unclear/inconsistent, 3. Moderately clear/consistent, 4. Clear/consistent, 5. Very clear/consistent.

I’ve given both leaders 4/5 here. Both parties have presented clear and consistent political and policy visions with their present leaders. Readers who disagree will find that I take some relevant issues into account in items below.

S1 02 Communicative performance: 1. Very poor, 2. Poor, 3. Average, 4. Good, 5. Very good.

Luxon has been struggling here: for example, the criticism he received from National-friendly broadcaster Mike Hosking for failing to give a straight answer. (Mike had resumed normal pro-National broadcasting, however, on 7 March.) Many other people find Luxon inauthentic and patronising. Hipkins has performed better as a communicator (regardless of whether you like or dislike his values). I’ve given Luxon 2/5 and Hipkins 4/5 here.

S2 03 Personal poll rating relative to rating at most recent election: 1. Very low (<-15%), 2. Low (-5 to -15%), 3. Moderate (-5% to 5%), 4. High (5-15%), 5. Very High (15% or more).

This is an objective numerical measure based on preferred prime minister opinion polls. Luxon gets 3/5 and Hipkins, who’s risen a bit recently, gets 3/5 too.

S2 04 Longevity: time in office (as PM): 1. <1 year, 2. 1 – 2 years, 3. 2 – 3 years, 4. 3 - 4 years, 5. More than 4.

At March 2025, Luxon gets 2/5 and Hipkins gets 1/5. If we included time in office as party leaders, the numbers would be higher.

S2 05 (Re)election margin for the party leadership (% of relevant electors, i.e. caucus, party members): 1. Very small (<1%), 2. Small (1-5%), 3. Moderate (5-10%), 4. Large (10-15%), 5. Very large (>15%).

Both leaders were elected (as party leaders) by their respective caucuses. These votes are private. In Hipkins’s case, it’s known to be unanimous. For Luxon, I believe it was also a large margin, greater than 15%. So they both get 5/5. They both started out with strong internal support as party leaders.

R1 06 Party polling relative to most recent election result: 1. <-10%, 2. -10% to-2.5%, 3. -2.5% to +2.5%, 4. +2.5% to 10%, 5. >10%.

In early March 2025, Labour was polling in the low 30s, up from an election result of 26.9%. So Hipkins gets 4/5. National was also polling in the low 30s, down from 38.1%. So Luxon gets 2/5.

R1 07 Levels of public trust in leader: 1. 0-20%, 2. 20-40%, 3. 40-60%, 4. 60-80%, 5. 80-100%.

I’ve had to reach back to a “trust” poll in early 2023 and a similar one in May that year. Luxon got a lower trust level (37%) than Hipkins (53%). So Luxon gets 2/5 and Hipkins gets 3/5.

R1 08 Likelihood of credible leadership challenge within next 6 months: 1. Very high, 2. High, 3. Moderate, 4. Low, 5. Very low.

This relies on predictions, but Luxon is in greater danger of a spill than Hipkins. National’s polling is down and Duncan Garner has told us that the knives are out. Most other commentators agree, though, that the costs of changing leader are higher for National than the potential benefits. Although Hipkins lost the election in 2023, he seems to be secure as Labour leader, following a state of the nation speech and a shadow cabinet reshuffle. Luxon gets 3/5 (moderate risk) and Hipkins gets 4/5 (low risk).

R2 09 Perceived ability to shape party’s policy platform: 1. Very low, 2. Low, 3. Moderate, 4. High, 5. Very high.

This is subjective (perceived) and it’s difficult to compare the two, but it’s not about whether we like the policies. They both perform moderately well on this (so both get 3/5). Luxon has put his own managerial style on policymaking, notably with quarterly targets. Hipkins, as former PM, did a lot of dumping policies (the famous policy bonfire and his captain’s call on tax). Since the election he’s led well on values and vision through set-piece speeches – although that tax policy is taking some time and there’s still a lot “we haven’t made a final call on that, but…” in his interview with Guyon Espiner. Both leaders have yet to restate their parties’ policy platforms and show how they’ve shaped it. We’d expect to see improvements here closer to the election.

R2 10 Perceived parliamentary effectiveness: 1. Very low, 2. Low, 3. Moderate, 4. High, 5. Very high.

Hipkins has an advantage on this one, given his much greater parliamentary experience. Luxon hasn’t dealt decisively with two attention-grabbing coalition partners, especially given the negative impact of Seymour’s Treaty Bill. Hipkins gets 4/5, Luxon gets 2/5.

The upshot

The results add up to a ranking:

• Depleted capital (edge of removal or “lame duck”) 0-20.

• Low capital (“politically weakened” but still capable of some action) 20–30.

• Medium capital (“muddling through” in the face of significant obstacles and divisions, yet with provisional license to operate from (small majority within) the authorizing environment) 30–40.

• High capital (“momentum” derived from robust past electoral/legislative performance and party cohesion) 40–50.

• Exceptional capital (“political weather maker” boosted by electoral landslide, and/or personal dominance and/or “good crises to have”) 50.

Luxon gets 28. Hipkins gets 35. Neither is a great score; both careers are looking stalled.

Luxon rates as “politically weakened” but could still improve through better communication, sounder leadership of an ambitious team and greater control over coalition dynamics. His leadership capital has never amounted to much; he didn’t get a post-election “honeymoon”. It looks like he may have peaked early – and low. If the National Party is going to roll the sitting PM (as they did to Bolger in 1997), then the next six months would be a suitable timeframe – but what if Luxon’s policies really do start to pay off? As an investment, Luxon’s probably too big to gamble with until after the next election.

Hipkins is “muddling through”. He needs to connect with voters, boost his reputation as a future leader, rather than election loser, and sharpen up Labour’s policy platform to clarify what they now stand for. It could be that his leadership capital peaked in early 2023 when he became PM. Labour party polls are up a bit since the election, but his own rating in preferred PM polls has remained low. Can he build new stocks of leadership capital before the 2026 election?

Neither leader has performed well compared with predecessors Key and Ardern at their height. But political fortunes are unpredictable, and there’s always the possibility of a crisis that’s “good to have”.

Readers are welcome to critique my assessments in comments, and to offer alternative ratings. Have I been fair or unfair? Please make any comments reasonable. This is not an invitation to vent.