The way I see this is that 2026 is the coalition’s election to lose. The essential KPI for Luxon is that the coalition doesn’t fall apart in acrimony before then. That’s it.
With their term heading out to a minimum of 6 years, they have a mandate for their view of New Zealand. Focus on the economy, health, education and roll back the silly stuff.
If Luxon-as-manager pulls this off, then he wins the only ranking system that matters. Delivering results.
Hi John. Thanks for the comment. I agree about "the only ranking system that matters". Do I take it that you don't disagree with my present assessment of the two leaders? Cheers.
Thanks Grant. Interesting post as neither leader is especially impressive. We have seen enough of Hipkins to get a sense of where he is coming from but i am less sure about Luxon. Broadly agree with your analysis but Luxon may know what he is doing. David Seymour and NZ First have attracted more than their fair share of the negative public attention (school lunches, Treaty Principles Bill, smoking legislation, Aotearoa) and this has generally worked in Luxon's favour and has taken some of the focus away from National's slash and burn agenda in heath and public services. Is this intentional? Margaret Thatcher comes to mind who was an enormously influential leader (with a seriously harsh agenda) but it took her a few years to dominate the political landscape - she was seen as pretty disastrous in her first two years by the public and her cabinet. And while Jacinda was a seriously impressive leader in her first term, as you pointed out in your previous post, we also saw how quickly her popularity fell when the tide went out. You may well be right but while Luxon has definitely failed to impress so far, it may be too early to judge in the long term.
Thanks for the feedback, Mark! The good thing about the LCI is that it's designed to change with time. Thatcher was "rescued" by the Falklands invasion, so that was "a good crisis to have", rather like the bounce that Starmer is getting now. Luxon may be rewarded next year for sticking with it! Cheers.
Think you have overstated the political vision of Mr Luxon - the coalition programme seems more to be a statement of ACT and NZ First visions than of National. Mr Luxon, to me, is just drifting along.
Otherwise can agree with (live with?) your assessment.
Also well structured report so we had to read right to the end to get the result.
Thanks for the comment, Andrew. Much appreciated, and yes, the vision item for Luxon is overshadowed by the coalition agreement, so I was perhaps a little generous.
Thank you for a great attempt to quantify the information available on both leaders. However, the comments posted here highlight the difficulties many of us have when endeavouring to assess the performance of our leaders. It is nearly impossible to set aside our politics and most of us "automatically" reject any leaders who hold views which are contrary to our own. I write "automatic" because it is not easy to be rational. For example, Chris Hipkins assisted me a decade ago with a medical problem which resulted in a successful outcome, for which I was very grateful. My politics have tended to the left for as long as I have been cognisant of the spectrum so it is not easy for me to easily accept criticism of Hipkins's leadership whereas I have great difficulty in accepting the actions of Christopher Luxon. To be fair, Luxon is struggling with a political coalition which was never going to be easy, especially for someone as politically inexperienced as him. To give them credit, I am sure that both men are striving to perform as best they can under the circumstances. That might or might not be sufficient depending on our points of view which means that your attempt to quantify a comparison is increasingly important but probably doomed to fail because of intangibles.
Such an intangible is something which you did not raise in your summation—that of "leadership". It is intangible because no one has offered an easily understood definition of it. It is something I assumed both men would understand and yet seems to be singularly lacking in our political circles. Something which, with all his political experience, I would have expected Hipkins to have an abundance of. Likewise, with his reputation as a successful CEO, I would expect Luxon to know what it is.
Can I define "leadership"? Not easily! The closest I have ever come to a good understanding is from a comment made by Kevin Roberts, sometime global CEO of Saatchi & Saatchi, probably about 20 years ago. While being interviewed by Chris Laidlaw on National Radio, Roberts responded to a question (which I can no longer remember) about which Laidlaw commented, "That's leadership!". "No," replied Roberts, "that's management." Laidlaw asked him what the difference was, to which Roberts replied, "Management is about doing things right. Leadership is about doing the right thing." It was pretty obvious, when I thought about it, and I have often wondered who of those I have encountered who thought of themselves as "leaders" knew what the "right things" were.
Grant, if you could quantify that as part of your political capital index, you will have taken us a long way towards rational understanding.
Great comments, thank you, Gary. No one can quantify the unquantifiable, and the LCI doesn't purport to do that. It's only an index of where a leader stands on their career path, assuming that their capital rises and falls. So it's not a one-off judgement of a person's leadership. Some of the items require a qualitative judgement. I can offer a definition of leadership. But I like Linsky's: "Leadership is about disappointing people at the rate they can absorb."
Thanks Grant. I suspect poor Luxon is getting hammered in the polls because of voter irationality with regard to the economy, and expectations of how quickly a change in government can 'fix' things.
Unfortunately for Luxo, Adrian Orr (Grant Robertson hire) engineered a massive recession, the largest we've had since the early 90s, to counterbalance the massive boom (and inflation) he engineered with help from Grant Robertson's huge stimulus spending.
2024 was always going to be a dismal year economically as a result, if the government hadn't changed you'd probably see rates come down a bit slower, with government spending a bit higher, and the recession slightly less severe.
2025 and 2026 should see the economy improve, and Luxon's polling rise with it.
Luxon is unfortunately has insufficient depth of character and conviction, and a lack of political experience so the polling drop has probably been bigger than it would have otherwise been.
Hipkins is equally shallow, though more politically experienced.
Great comment, thanks Matt. The LCI is a dynamic index that follows a career, so Luxon's tide could rise if policies pay off – and if he'd stop saying "What I'd just say to you is..."
The way I see this is that 2026 is the coalition’s election to lose. The essential KPI for Luxon is that the coalition doesn’t fall apart in acrimony before then. That’s it.
With their term heading out to a minimum of 6 years, they have a mandate for their view of New Zealand. Focus on the economy, health, education and roll back the silly stuff.
If Luxon-as-manager pulls this off, then he wins the only ranking system that matters. Delivering results.
Hi John. Thanks for the comment. I agree about "the only ranking system that matters". Do I take it that you don't disagree with my present assessment of the two leaders? Cheers.
I’m on board with you. My answer was off base from that perspective.
Thanks Grant. Interesting post as neither leader is especially impressive. We have seen enough of Hipkins to get a sense of where he is coming from but i am less sure about Luxon. Broadly agree with your analysis but Luxon may know what he is doing. David Seymour and NZ First have attracted more than their fair share of the negative public attention (school lunches, Treaty Principles Bill, smoking legislation, Aotearoa) and this has generally worked in Luxon's favour and has taken some of the focus away from National's slash and burn agenda in heath and public services. Is this intentional? Margaret Thatcher comes to mind who was an enormously influential leader (with a seriously harsh agenda) but it took her a few years to dominate the political landscape - she was seen as pretty disastrous in her first two years by the public and her cabinet. And while Jacinda was a seriously impressive leader in her first term, as you pointed out in your previous post, we also saw how quickly her popularity fell when the tide went out. You may well be right but while Luxon has definitely failed to impress so far, it may be too early to judge in the long term.
Thanks for the feedback, Mark! The good thing about the LCI is that it's designed to change with time. Thatcher was "rescued" by the Falklands invasion, so that was "a good crisis to have", rather like the bounce that Starmer is getting now. Luxon may be rewarded next year for sticking with it! Cheers.
Yes - agree. I was living in the UK in 1982 and Thatcher seemed to capture the spirit of the British - gave her a huge lift.
Think you have overstated the political vision of Mr Luxon - the coalition programme seems more to be a statement of ACT and NZ First visions than of National. Mr Luxon, to me, is just drifting along.
Otherwise can agree with (live with?) your assessment.
Also well structured report so we had to read right to the end to get the result.
Thanks for the comment, Andrew. Much appreciated, and yes, the vision item for Luxon is overshadowed by the coalition agreement, so I was perhaps a little generous.
Thank you for a great attempt to quantify the information available on both leaders. However, the comments posted here highlight the difficulties many of us have when endeavouring to assess the performance of our leaders. It is nearly impossible to set aside our politics and most of us "automatically" reject any leaders who hold views which are contrary to our own. I write "automatic" because it is not easy to be rational. For example, Chris Hipkins assisted me a decade ago with a medical problem which resulted in a successful outcome, for which I was very grateful. My politics have tended to the left for as long as I have been cognisant of the spectrum so it is not easy for me to easily accept criticism of Hipkins's leadership whereas I have great difficulty in accepting the actions of Christopher Luxon. To be fair, Luxon is struggling with a political coalition which was never going to be easy, especially for someone as politically inexperienced as him. To give them credit, I am sure that both men are striving to perform as best they can under the circumstances. That might or might not be sufficient depending on our points of view which means that your attempt to quantify a comparison is increasingly important but probably doomed to fail because of intangibles.
Such an intangible is something which you did not raise in your summation—that of "leadership". It is intangible because no one has offered an easily understood definition of it. It is something I assumed both men would understand and yet seems to be singularly lacking in our political circles. Something which, with all his political experience, I would have expected Hipkins to have an abundance of. Likewise, with his reputation as a successful CEO, I would expect Luxon to know what it is.
Can I define "leadership"? Not easily! The closest I have ever come to a good understanding is from a comment made by Kevin Roberts, sometime global CEO of Saatchi & Saatchi, probably about 20 years ago. While being interviewed by Chris Laidlaw on National Radio, Roberts responded to a question (which I can no longer remember) about which Laidlaw commented, "That's leadership!". "No," replied Roberts, "that's management." Laidlaw asked him what the difference was, to which Roberts replied, "Management is about doing things right. Leadership is about doing the right thing." It was pretty obvious, when I thought about it, and I have often wondered who of those I have encountered who thought of themselves as "leaders" knew what the "right things" were.
Grant, if you could quantify that as part of your political capital index, you will have taken us a long way towards rational understanding.
Great comments, thank you, Gary. No one can quantify the unquantifiable, and the LCI doesn't purport to do that. It's only an index of where a leader stands on their career path, assuming that their capital rises and falls. So it's not a one-off judgement of a person's leadership. Some of the items require a qualitative judgement. I can offer a definition of leadership. But I like Linsky's: "Leadership is about disappointing people at the rate they can absorb."
I agree, Grant. But I’m afraid Linsky’s definition is a bit too negative for me. I am the eternal optimist!
Thanks Grant. I suspect poor Luxon is getting hammered in the polls because of voter irationality with regard to the economy, and expectations of how quickly a change in government can 'fix' things.
Unfortunately for Luxo, Adrian Orr (Grant Robertson hire) engineered a massive recession, the largest we've had since the early 90s, to counterbalance the massive boom (and inflation) he engineered with help from Grant Robertson's huge stimulus spending.
2024 was always going to be a dismal year economically as a result, if the government hadn't changed you'd probably see rates come down a bit slower, with government spending a bit higher, and the recession slightly less severe.
2025 and 2026 should see the economy improve, and Luxon's polling rise with it.
Luxon is unfortunately has insufficient depth of character and conviction, and a lack of political experience so the polling drop has probably been bigger than it would have otherwise been.
Hipkins is equally shallow, though more politically experienced.
Great comment, thanks Matt. The LCI is a dynamic index that follows a career, so Luxon's tide could rise if policies pay off – and if he'd stop saying "What I'd just say to you is..."