It is becoming increasingly clear that National, under Christopher Luxon’s leadership, cannot win the next election.

A Labour government, having recently brought about a smooth change of leadership, and currently being confronted with a series of unprecedented challenges – the impact on the economy and health services of the covid pandemic, the damage wreaked by cyclone Gabrielle, and the inflationary consequences of the Ukraine war, to name but three – has nevertheless moved ahead of National in the polls.

Those same polls offer some indication of why Labour’s polling, despite the problems Labour has faced, has remained ahead of National. Chris Hipkins is shown as significantly ahead of Luxon as preferred Price Minister; Luxon, sadly for National, is neither liked nor trusted.

It is part of the accepted wisdom of democratic politics that voters decide which party they support according to whom they wish to see leading the country. On that basis, National will continue to face an uphill struggle for as long as Christopher Luxon is their leader.

The problem for National is that it is not clear that there is any risk-free means of resolving the question of leadership. The repeated shambles that National got itself into with its leadership merry-go-round of recent times is still fresh in the public mind – and contrasts unfavourably with Labour’s smooth transition.

They can hardly risk another disastrous flirtation with unsuitable candidates and a divided caucus (Judith Collins, anyone?). National are, in other words, seemingly stuck with a leader who is not acceptable to New Zealand voters as their Prime Minister.

Claire Trevett in today’s Herald provides us with an insight into how much the right is missing the levers of power. Their banishment from the role of government makes them sick to the gut – to the extent that they must regularly reach for their lucky charm and for a recollection of better days.

In this morning’s piece, Claire Trevett withholds any credit from Chris Hipkins for his impressive response to the Cyclone Gabrielle disaster. The real credit, she argues, belongs to Saint John Key – Hipkins has merely copied the master’s response to the Christchurch earthquake.

It seems to have escaped her notice that the “response to disaster” playbook is not exactly a closed book; there are some steps that cry out to be taken – and Hipkins has surely shown himself to be well up with the required play. To call the ghost of John Key into the picture is gratuitous – as well as revealing.

It is a constant feature of the Herald’s political coverage that John Key is used as a talisman whenever (and that means often) National’s spirits need lifting. The average voter, however, is not so hopelessly enamoured – and is unlikely to be convinced that both the weather map and the political landscape would be much different and better if only John Key were still around.

Even if Claire Trevett’s wish fulfilment were granted, there is a still a teeny-weeny problem. National are lumbered with Christopher Luxon, not John Key. Dreaming will only get you so far.

Thank heavens we have a Labour government! No government in recent times has had more experience in dealing with crises – the mosque murders, the Whakaari eruption, the covid pandemic, the inflationary consequences of the Ukraine war. Faced with Cyclone Gabrielle, we have been fortunate, even after Jacinda’s departure, in having an experienced operator in Chris Hipkins at the helm.

We can’t afford to entrust the management of national crises like these to those with zilch political or governmental experience. Let’s stick with the tried and true.

The Herald’s headline writers are at it again! A sensible and balanced piece by Liam Dann on the battle against inflation carries a headline that suggests that NZ is doing worse than the rest of the world. Check it out and see for yourself if I am right. Is this the kind of responsible journalism we should be able to expect?

Poor Mike Hosking. He has revealed himself in his most recent diatribe to be one of those public figures who is defined, not by who he is, but by who he isn’t, or at least not by what he is for, but by what he is against.

Jacinda’s departure has left him bereft of anything distinctive to say – to the extent that he is reduced to quoting none other than his wife, Kate Hawkesby, to back up his claim to superior insight. With Jacinda gone, Hosking is nothing more than yet another of NZME’s stable of right-wing automatons, predictably and always taking a right-wing stance on whatever issue presents itself.

You need a new point of difference, Mike. You could start by acknowledging the misogyny that lay behind much of the criticism directed at Jacinda.