Collins crushed; Reti appointed Interim Leader

Public Policy / news

Judith Collins loses National Party leadership as bid to crush Simon Bridges backfires; Shane Reti appointed Interim Leader

25th Nov 21, 1:15pm by Jenée Tibshraeny

Judith Collins

Judith Collins has lost the National Party leadership, following a vote of no confidence by the caucus.

Deputy Leader Shane Reti has been appointed Interim Leader.

A new leader will be appointed following a caucus meeting on Tuesday, November 30.

Christopher Luxon and Mark Mitchell are being talked about as contenders for the leadership.

Simon Bridges, who had been positioning himself to oust Collins, said he would take a couple of days to consider whether he'd put his name forward.

Collins got completely offside with her colleagues on Wednesday night when she issued a shock statement announcing she was demoting Bridges over a historic misconduct allegation.

Bridges admitted he made a comment - an "old wives tale" around to conceive a girl - to fellow National MPs at a function.

National MP Jacqui Dean complained. The issue was handled by then-Deputy Prime Minister Bill English. Bridges apologised.

Bridges said he was surprised by Collins' "desperate" move to knock him back. He said he had matured from the time he made the comment.

The National Party's caucus spent all of Thursday morning in a meeting to discuss a way forward.

Collins put her side of the story on Twitter:

Of a variety of factors. I knew when I was confided in by a female colleague regarding her allegation of serious misconduct against a senior colleague, that I would likely lose the leadership by taking the matter so seriously. If I hadn’t, then I felt that I wouldn’t deserve
— Judith Collins (@JudithCollinsMP) November 24, 2021

A big thank you to the wonderful staff in the National Leader’s Office, my Papakura Office, National Party members & my wonderful colleagues. I’m so pleased that I can spend more time with my family & friends & I will not miss the gruelling media schedule.
— Judith Collins (@JudithCollinsMP) November 24, 2021

Dean released the following statement:

"About five years ago, Simon Bridges made remarks that upset me at the time. They were not about me, but they were inappropriate and not something I wanted to hear.

"At the time there was an apology, but subsequently it has continued to play on my mind and with the recent reviews that have occurred in Parliament the feelings have been brought back up.

“What matters to me is that all of us have a clear understanding of what behaviour we should expect in a modern workplace environment.

“Simon and I have spoken a number of times over the past few hours and he has reiterated his apology.

“As I’m sure can be appreciated, the publicity around this has been upsetting and I ask that my privacy is respected on this.”

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

138 Comments

by dumbthoughts | 25th Nov 21, 1:19pm 1637799566

Big opportunity missed for the headline to read "Collins Crushed".

by nktokyo | 25th Nov 21, 1:23pm 1637799804

Great minds...

by Ideapenny | 25th Nov 21, 7:04pm 1637820267

"Collins crushed, Bridges burnt."

by dumbthoughts | 26th Nov 21, 6:47am 1637862462

I bow down to your superior headline writing skills.

Teach me, senpai.

by Uncle Bulgaria | 26th Nov 21, 1:56pm 1637888200

I wanted to write ‘Burning Bridges - Collins rocks the Status Quo’ on Wednesday night.

Boss said way too 90’s U.K. niche ….. she was right but I still liked it.

by nktokyo | 25th Nov 21, 1:23pm 1637799783

I can't wait to see which old white person they replace her with

by Cheetahlegs66 | 25th Nov 21, 1:58pm 1637801881

Ageist and racist? Personally I couldn't care if they are pink lesbians. Anyone is preferable to Collins who was unelectable.

Luxon-seen as too allied to big business 'rich white guy.' It is now about identify politics, not policy. How else could a horse lead a country.

by J.C. | 25th Nov 21, 2:26pm 1637803578

Luxon-seen as too allied to big business 'rich white guy.'

Ex-Unilever. Good with processes. But everything has to go through a stage gate.

by tairantei | 25th Nov 21, 2:39pm 1637804378

I think your nasty note says more about you and the person you are and I know what kids yours would be in the play ground. hate is taught.

by b21 | 25th Nov 21, 3:07pm 1637806038

Well it won't be pink lesbians, that's the problem.

by the Joneses | 25th Nov 21, 4:00pm 1637809208

You couldn't care if they are gay or straight, old or young, black white or asian, but if they aren't a perfect ten on looks (the horse comment above), that disqualifies them?

by muzled | 25th Nov 21, 1:58pm 1637801902

Which old white Christian person...

by Davo36 | 25th Nov 21, 2:05pm 1637802300

Yeah as long as it's not a young brown person aye? Or is that ageist/racist to say that? Both your statement and mine are actually. I'm just making mine to point out how racist/ageist your one is.

by fortunr | 25th Nov 21, 3:12pm 1637806348

Right, so "old" people do not deserve to become leaders of a major party, especially if "white" ? Maybe we should get rid of them all, once they get over 65 ? That would save some Super money for sure.

by Dave Moderato | 25th Nov 21, 3:55pm 1637808933

So. You'd wish to rename Mount Blanc, Mount Racist?

by Cobolt24 | 25th Nov 21, 4:10pm 1637809828

I bet you're the sort who thinks identity matters more than real world results.

by Tony Neville | 25th Nov 21, 5:44pm 1637815479

I'm wanting one that makes bigots like yourself too ashamed to express themselves in public. Unfortunately, the National Party doesn't stand for anything which is why ACT is getting some of the NAT voters.

by Fluffybunny | 25th Nov 21, 9:03pm 1637827416

I can't wait for the next Labour diversity hire.

by Warwick D | 25th Nov 21, 1:24pm 1637799897

The media will be happy; who's next?

by HouseMouse | 25th Nov 21, 1:25pm 1637799929

I have no real idea why, but I came to quite like her recently, almost like developing a crush.

by HouseMouse | 25th Nov 21, 1:26pm 1637799991

But they simply had to change, to have a shot at victory next election.

by JimboJones | 25th Nov 21, 1:29pm 1637800155

They have someone worth changing to?

by Kjeldorian | 25th Nov 21, 1:30pm 1637800255

Don't know who they have that will stand much of a chance to be fair. It seems to me that NZ is voting for who is the most popular person, not what the party policies are. I don't think National have anyone who will be as popular as Jacinda.

by FCM | 25th Nov 21, 1:36pm 1637800593

I'm thinking they should appoint a cute little puppy, their ratings will probably sky rocket. It would just to need to be cute.

by Kjeldorian | 25th Nov 21, 1:58pm 1637801913

I would vote for a cute puppy over any current politician.

by Foxglove. | 25th Nov 21, 1:54pm 1637801653

For a well qualified & experienced lawyer Collins has shown a distinct lack of tact and a high degree of misjudgement. This is the case here too and it has backfired so much show she has forced her own demise. Hoist by your own petard, scarcely covers it. National will have to bring Luxon forward now & somehow school & shore him up to compensate his lack of parliamentary experience. He has of course high level boardroom experience of an international concern of quite some NewZealand profile. Watch for Key & Joyce to filter into the background. If National cannot unite solidly behind a viable leader within the next six months, they are virtually writing themselves off the next election and beyond. The other candidate is very ordinary and will offer neither new direction nor fresh image.

by Harvey W | 25th Nov 21, 5:42pm 1637815347

Is it not obvious that Collins knew she was finished, but just wanted to take out Bridges on the way?

by redcows1 | 25th Nov 21, 6:24pm 1637817848

Yea, the knives were coming and she had only one to throw. Took him out to I reckon.

by Foxglove. | 25th Nov 21, 9:07pm 1637827664

That is not inconceivable at all. But the hour of night could suggest some overindulgence in fortification? Sometime back PM Muldoon for instance, sought to similarly lance the boil in a late hour public manner and in an obvious state of induced self assurance. Looks to me more of an intemperate, hot and hostile, to hell with it, don’t mess with me don’t you know, bull headed, moment.

by Nifty1 | 25th Nov 21, 1:27pm 1637800056

Imagine if Key came back...

by bender | 25th Nov 21, 1:29pm 1637800159

NO. No. No.

by Kjeldorian | 25th Nov 21, 1:31pm 1637800298

I can't imagine the median house price rising to $5m

by GV 27 | 25th Nov 21, 1:50pm 1637801431

Have you been asleep for the last 18 months?

by Kjeldorian | 25th Nov 21, 1:57pm 1637801865

At least now there is acknowledgement that there is a housing crisis. I mean, Labour has done nothing to fix it but at least they recognise there is a problem.

by Noncents | 25th Nov 21, 2:05pm 1637802329

At least now there is acknowledgement that there is a housing crisis. I mean, Labour has [made it unfathomably worse] but at least they recognise there is a problem.

Fixed it.

by GV 27 | 25th Nov 21, 2:13pm 1637802805

House prices were blowing out under Labour before Key got anywhere near being PM, it was a part of his platform in 2008. They rose faster under Labour than they did for the bulk of National's tenure. But no, instead we get this 'hurr john key house price durrr' brainless meme even though house prices have been proven to rise faster under Labour governments.

by Cheetahlegs66 | 25th Nov 21, 2:30pm 1637803816

The REINZ medium house price data doesn't lie. Hosing started becoming pricey under Clarke, expensive under Key and unaffordable under Ardern. When you are the Minister of 'Child Poverty' and pledge (with teary eyes) to address this whilst letting prices skyrocket for 4yrs you are at best a failure, at worse a 2-faced liar.

by Plutocracy | 25th Nov 21, 3:46pm 1637808371

But increasing house prices reduces inequality - NZ Treasury.

by Essen | 25th Nov 21, 2:43pm 1637804606

Yep. If you take a look at the REINZ HPI over 30 years, prices tend to rise at about 11% pa on average with Labour governments and only 6% pa on average with National governments. Arguably, if you're a FHB you should vote National then once you own a house vote Labour. In many ways, Jacinda Ardern was the best thing to happen to rich people ever. I have no idea why many of the left continue to see her as a messiah. Her administration has started to decimate the poor and Orr's rampant inflation will finish the job.

by kiwikidsnz | 25th Nov 21, 3:07pm 1637806058

Tony Alexanders also done that comparative analysis today for & confirms the rate of house prices increases under Labour are about 50% higher than National.

by fortunr | 25th Nov 21, 3:16pm 1637806585

Come on guys, you all know perfectly well that both National and Labour have been utterly pathetic when it comes to housing. No point trying to find out which of the two is worse, as they both totally suck when it comes to housing policies. Not that other parties have a much better record, mind you.

by HouseMouse | 25th Nov 21, 3:21pm 1637806892

We need to be careful around causation!

I would say that National has often won power off the back of economic weakness towards the end of a Labour term. That economic weakness lags into the term of National. Weaker house price growth is usually associated with weaker economy.

by RickStrauss | 25th Nov 21, 3:00pm 1637805647

Key's problem was his sincere campaigning on the housing crisis, followed by his cynical denial for 8+ years that any crisis existed, and the celebration of rising house prices as a good problem to have and a sign of our success (along with the rising homelessness, obvs). This is pointed out each time this argument comes up. It's the sheer dishonesty that was the biggest disappointment.

Ardern faces the prospect of becoming Key 2.0

by GV 27 | 25th Nov 21, 3:22pm 1637806979

How much worse would you need things to get before you might accept that Ardern has done worse than Key has? How's the housing waitlist looking these days?

by HouseMouse | 25th Nov 21, 3:29pm 1637807347

I was in and around advice to Twyford around Special Housing Areas (SHAs) soon after Labour came to power. Although far from perfect, they were bolstering housing supply and seeming to have at least some effect in stabilizing house prices.

Twyford flatly refused to continue with them.

It was simply arrogant politics. He did not want to continue with something the opposition had introduced, even if there was evidence that it had at least some success.

The rest is history in terms of his utter failure on housing.

We all know about Kiwibuild, but what's happened on his other grand visions, like several thousand homes on the Unitec site????

by RickStrauss | 25th Nov 21, 3:40pm 1637808044

As an aside: I have not voted for her, while I did vote for Key twice.

I suggest they both had genuine intent at some point, and indeed prior to COVID the current govt was at least implementing some measures and half-measures, e.g. addressing property's tax imbalance, better tenancy and healthy home laws to stop profitable outsourcing unhealthy product costs to taxpayers, and - albeit poorly - making efforts on supply. Not enough, but some.

Since COVID we've seen both RBNZ and the govt fail on housing, and an unfortunate belief that house prices should never be allowed to fall.

But I can at least credit genuine attempts over cynical dishonesty over 8 years.

The poverty we have now is the fruit of what we've sowed over the last decade plus. It should surprise no one that as houses have become more expensive more have been driven to renting, and more have dropped out the bottom. We see it when investors hit any new town in strength - sudden laments over the cost and availability of both houses to buy and rent.

The best young Kiwis can do is look elsewhere than National or Labour because there is no interest there in making houses cheaper.

by streetwise | 25th Nov 21, 5:40pm 1637815219

You're obviously a true blue if you voted for Key twice. But you can't blame Labour; they inherited a run-away train from Key. And then the pandemic hit with all its accompanying economic and multitudinous other unknowns.

But the Australian right-wing think tank, the Lowy Institute, has analysed all countries' responses to Covid and arrived at the conclusion that NZ's response was the best. It's obvious their response has been top shelf considering all the deliberate right wing obstruction they have had to contend with.

If you're looking for another party perhaps you could look no further than the new Social Credit Party which introduced itself with a fullpage add in the Herald the other day. It's sure to attract a few National stunned erstwhile supporters who can now be seen walking aimlessly about the streets with their face glued to the footpath and there hands deep in their pockets, if you take the trouble to look out the window.

by lostinawoods | 26th Nov 21, 12:36am 1637840195

Yeah, pandemic is the reason why:

-100k goal was set and repeated 100k times just to be scraped

- we’ve seen the historical high immigration numbers right before covid

- we keep renting motels with tax money with no permanent solution in place (4x waiting list)

- no meaningful tax changes targeting property (stamp duty, dti, cgt) have been implemented.

- stimulus implemented supporting assets holders was allowed to go full on

PS: I’m not a national supporter but hey how many more years demonstration of inability solving problems you’ve been elected to solve we need to say that labour is a no go?

by GV 27 | 26th Nov 21, 7:56am 1637866601

"But you can't blame Labour; they inherited a run-away train from Key."

I dunno, they scrapped Bill English's tax bracket readjustments and implemented a fuel tax pretty quick. Seems they can move pretty fast when they wanted to. And Key wasn't PM, English was. And it also didn't stop them using National NOT starting a Kiwibuild programme as a platform for attack saying how great they would be when they got elected. They spent years going on about it. And then when they actually got the chance, they were found wanting. They've since then gone on to make things much much worse.

All of this preceded COVID. The Covid response is not a shield from scrutiny. And in the fullness of time, a Royal Commission of Inquiry will show us just how honest the government was during that 'top shelf' response. Border testing, rapid testing, contact tracing that fell over at 20% of the supposed capacity... and those are just the stuff-ups that we know about to date. But sure dude, the right wing obstruction was the problem.

God save us all from the revisionists.

by Whatwillhappen | 26th Nov 21, 9:56am 1637873762

Social Credit have been around for ages. They're pointless, backward looking dinosaurs who actually died in the 80s but have refused to accept defeat. Social Credit:

the economic theory that consumer purchasing power should be increased either by subsidizing producers so that they can lower prices or by distributing the profits of industry to consumers.

No thanks.

by HouseMouse | 25th Nov 21, 3:23pm 1637807000

I corresponded with him about a year before he was first elected PM. He 'assured' me that he would sort out housing...

The rest is history. Or His Story.

by AndrewRiddell5886 | 26th Nov 21, 6:46am 1637862396

Key said there was no housing crisis.

When there was.

by Essen | 26th Nov 21, 3:56pm 1637895396

Compared to now, I'd say he was right there was no crisis. And if then was a crisis, what do you call it now?

by Spiceeh | 26th Nov 21, 10:50pm 1637920208

I would say it's in the "worse before it gets better" stage, and the better is about to hit in the form of credit bubbles popping globally.

by Cobolt24 | 25th Nov 21, 4:13pm 1637810028

About the only thing they've done I can say they've done well is increase the amount of state houses. How much of this was from new building or just being bought out from the private market I don't know.

by Fluffybunny | 25th Nov 21, 9:06pm 1637827601

When you say acknowledge it. Do you mean "deliberately pump more debt onto the housing fire faster than any government previous?"

Get away from the fluffy optics and you will see the govt are a complete train wreck.

by Kjeldorian | 26th Nov 21, 6:36am 1637861789

I agree, the govt is a complete train wreck. Has been for decades. Do you want your terrible government to have a red or blue logo?

by GV 27 | 26th Nov 21, 7:59am 1637866741

Pretty much comes down to which team do you want to say you voted for to pick up the most cred at your Ponsonby back yard BBQs.

Actually improving life, infrastructure or the lot of everyday Kiwis is secondary to the cause, which for ministers is filling their own pockets, and for Labour voters is robbing the futures of their progeny so that they can have a few ski weekends in Queenstown a year.

by Landgirl | 25th Nov 21, 9:47pm 1637830073

They made it a million times worse 🤦‍♀️ - now we actually do have more houses and zero immigrants and yet how many millions a week is being spent on emergency housing? Lost count

I think the waiting list is now 3 times longer or something similarly horrific

by Pa1nter | 26th Nov 21, 5:55am 1637859328

No one ever queries emergency housing properly.

A rise in emergency housing has less to do with housing supply and more to do with people having to find accommodation in emergency circumstances.

by JimboJones | 25th Nov 21, 1:44pm 1637801080

Key is the only elected National PM since Bolger in 1996, and those two are the only ones in the 40 years since Muldoon in 1981.What a sad lineup.

by thewanderer | 25th Nov 21, 2:00pm 1637802005

More a reflection of NZ not tending to roll governments before they've had at least two terms... The flipside to that is Labour have only had three PMs elected since Kirk in 1972...

The fun fact I always like is Labour only being in power for six years between 1949 and 1984. Imagine being a Labour MP during that time:-)

by Warwick D | 26th Nov 21, 10:04am 1637874253

Tongue in cheek I know but your comment says volumes about how New Zealand's political process has changed to a 'Presidential' style where the leader is everything and policies and performance mean less to the media and voters.

by GV 27 | 25th Nov 21, 1:28pm 1637800131

David Carter is correct. If the board knew of this, then the board has to go as well.

by nktokyo | 25th Nov 21, 1:33pm 1637800391

Reti and Willis please.

by HouseMouse | 25th Nov 21, 2:02pm 1637802134

Willis is presentable, but lightweight.

by Landgirl | 25th Nov 21, 6:44pm 1637819069

Reti and Sanford

by SmoKey | 25th Nov 21, 1:36pm 1637800602

Should have consulted Key more ?

by David Murray1 | 25th Nov 21, 1:37pm 1637800651

Ding dong the witch is dead. May the National Party follow her, along with Labour and the Greens.

by Cheetahlegs66 | 25th Nov 21, 4:38pm 1637811538

I got slated for referring to our esteemed PM as a ‘horse’ yet you get no heat for ‘witch.’ Irony is any caricature of Ardern plays on her overbite and most would pick her as the equine in a line up. In contrast the ‘witch’ nomination would have to sit with Mahuta, or Williams. Any reference to porcine identity is inappropriate.

by Foxglove. | 25th Nov 21, 8:27pm 1637825222

Somehow, I believe, you rattled that of quite rapidly. Sharply pointed satire is almost a lost art. Would sit well in the pages of the old Punch. Appreciated.

by tairantei | 26th Nov 21, 7:29pm 1637908198

Oh poor you, no need to be personal about ones appearance.

by b21 | 25th Nov 21, 1:42pm 1637800929

Imagine this vipers nest ruling the country...

by fortunr | 25th Nov 21, 3:19pm 1637806754

Oh yeah, thanks God we have a completely honest, competent and transparent Government always willing to share their information and their plans (sarcasm).

by Fluffybunny | 25th Nov 21, 9:08pm 1637827684

Imagine being run by hard core socialists...

by Warwick D | 25th Nov 21, 9:19pm 1637828361

At least they would be put under close scrutiny by our less than impartial mainstream media rather than the 'blind eye' approach some (TVNZ?) seem to apply to the current lot.

by VanillaChilli | 25th Nov 21, 1:44pm 1637801043

This is too dumb to be true - did she do it purposefuly to take Bridges out of the game, and leave the door for Christopher LuXXXon ? But you never know..

by JimboJones | 25th Nov 21, 1:45pm 1637801147

Definitely. She would have known she was toast regardless.

by donny11 | 25th Nov 21, 2:02pm 1637802161

Looks like she new she was toast. Decided to agree to take Simon Brides down in exchange for a comfortable role under the next pick. Presumably Luxon.

by printer8 | 25th Nov 21, 2:57pm 1637805470

Sadly, nothing like a bit of controversy to deflect from the Government's handling pandemic . . . Jacinda will be smiling with glee.

Why relitigate a situation some five years ago and dealt with at the time other than to be very vindictive?

Seems that the polls meant Collins was really under threat and her intent was simply to be to take Bridges down with her - just living up to her persona of "crusher".

If an inappropriate comment five years ago, not directed at Dean, and dealt with at time is all she can bring up on Bridges then she really is very desperate.

Laughable as she has not a perfect past herself including the conflict of interest in the Oravida saga and leaked emails so that Key removed her right to the use of the title of "Right Honourable".

by Kate | 25th Nov 21, 2:10pm 1637802624

One of my first thoughts too.

Still, the point is Bridges does have too much baggage with respect to the JLR saga - Collins has too much with respect to the Dirty Politics saga - this move by Judith takes both of them out of the race. Perhaps that indeed was her intention.

by RickStrauss | 25th Nov 21, 3:01pm 1637805719

I do half wonder if she had something on Jacqui Dean to get her to go along with it. Seems a terrible play on Dean's part.

by Landgirl | 25th Nov 21, 6:48pm 1637819310

If they were that strategic we’d have seen more strategy in the last 12 months - we haven’t - so they aren’t I don’t think 🤔

by SmoKey | 25th Nov 21, 1:44pm 1637801099

Who will be more glad that Judith has gone ? Seymour or Ardern ?

by Merrydaze | 25th Nov 21, 1:54pm 1637801643

Neither

by Kjeldorian | 25th Nov 21, 1:56pm 1637801770

Neither. For Ardern having Collins as opposition leader the next election was almost guaranteed.

For Seymour he was bolstered by usual National voters who have turned to their only viable alternative.

by muzled | 25th Nov 21, 1:57pm 1637801848

I think Ardern will be a little sad.

Afterall Collins has been like a stealth Labour party vote gainer by scaring off any centre swing voters scared of how toxic she is.

by thewanderer | 25th Nov 21, 1:54pm 1637801692

Is it just me or does Bridges come across as a totally different person all of a sudden?

by Mrs The Point | 25th Nov 21, 2:09pm 1637802597

Just you, I think. Seems the same to me.

by HouseMouse | 25th Nov 21, 3:32pm 1637807552

Yeah, apart from his weird, long and stringy hair style

by fortunr | 25th Nov 21, 3:21pm 1637806894

I could not stand Bridges. Now I almost like him.

by Cobolt24 | 25th Nov 21, 4:15pm 1637810153

I noticed this after he was rolled from being leader of the opposition. He became more likable.

by PocketAces | 26th Nov 21, 2:58pm 1637891897

He kind of became human, but suddenly now he is preparing to have another crack at the leadership I notice that grating 'vocal fry' is back. I'm not convinced of his si9ncerity.

Oh we don't need our own version Hillsong Scottie - Luxon

I think Reti is the most believable candidate they have

by Warwick D | 25th Nov 21, 9:12pm 1637827965

Just the same to any close observer but he has tried to spruce the image thinking he had another leadership opportunity coming up. Surely National wouldn't be that foolish, but who knows?

by Davo36 | 25th Nov 21, 2:08pm 1637802499

Jacqui Dean is a bit precious isn't she? All upset about some fairly harmless sounding comment made at a social function 5 years ago - which Soimon apologised for making. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

by murray86 | 25th Nov 21, 2:15pm 1637802959

Yes I read her comment. Was she not happy about how it was dealt with then? If not why didn't she make a stand? Why drag it up now if not for the express purpose to kick Bridges feet from under him? I suggest that for most MPs, if we were to go back five or more years and find things that would get them deposed today, especially Collins. This smacks of rank hypocrisy, but then this is politics.

by al123 | 25th Nov 21, 2:19pm 1637803156

It sounds like you are saying that if a person doesn't like it when their colleague makes a sexually inappropriate comment, then that person should just abandon their career. But I take it that's not what you mean because that would be nuts.

Also, I don't know why you are just assuming it was 'fairly harmless.' Assuming it was 'fairly harmless' is just assuming that Dean is being oversensitive, but given that we don't know what the comment was there's no good reason to assume that.

by Brutus Iscariot | 25th Nov 21, 2:31pm 1637803909

We do know what the comment was - Jacqui Dean is obviously a bit of a Maude Flanders type character if she's still traumatised 5 years on simply due to the oblique mentions of sexual techniques.

I think Bridges should have front footed it and refused to apologise. It's at the very tame of the locker room banter spectrum that goes on around the water cooler every day, at every workplace. Own it.

by al123 | 25th Nov 21, 2:52pm 1637805133

Do you? Where did you find it? All I could find was references to it being something to do with how to conceive a girl rather than a boy, but from that it's not possible to tell how offensive or vulgar it was. Also, Dean doesn't say she was traumatised. She says she was upset, and the comments were inappropriate. People should be able to point out when something is inappropriate without being made out to be Maude Flanders types. We know that she told Collins about it 5 years after it happened, but we don't know the context of this. It could have been 'hey Judith, I am making a serious allegation which I want you to do something about,' or, in passing, something like 'I find Simon a bit creepy - one time at a function he said this to me' and then Collins ran with it as a way to oust Bridges.

What's interesting about this discussion is, in the absence of the facts, who people are inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to and why. You've clearly reached the conclusion that what Bridges said wasn't that bad, and the Dean was being oversensitive. So you're inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to him rather than her, when the facts that would allow a fair evaluation aren't actually known.

by GV 27 | 25th Nov 21, 3:02pm 1637805747

I dunno, it's hard to shake preconceived notions when you're talking about someone who lobbied to ban water.

by Noncents | 25th Nov 21, 4:03pm 1637809434

I think context is important.

It sounds like personal chit-chat (albeit in a formal setting) that Dean found inappropriate.

An apology at the time was made. Which sounds entirely reasonable as a solution.

Bringing it up 5 years later...Was it deliberate Hari-Kari by Collins. Even she cannot be that politically inept as to not foresee the likely outcome?

by al123 | 25th Nov 21, 4:21pm 1637810468

I completely agree that what Collins did seems like a cynical over-reaction. It's hard to imagine any comment that would justify a demotion like that - it seems pretty clear that she was using it as an excuse to get rid of him.

I just don't think that the fact the Collins handled this badly is a reason to tar Dean with the same brush. We don't know what the context of the 'bringing it up' was. Worst case for Dean: she brought it up to Collins and asked her to relitigate it. Best case: she mentioned it in the context of a conversation about past behaviour, and Collins decided to relitigate it for her own purposes. We just don't know which one of these it was. But the fact that someone apologises to you for an inappropriate comment does not mean that you are from then on never allowed to mention it again.

by kiwikidsnz | 25th Nov 21, 4:34pm 1637811283

..."But the fact that someone apologises to you for an inappropriate comment does not mean that you are from then on never allowed to mention it again. " ...said every wife & GF since forever

by SmoKey | 25th Nov 21, 5:52pm 1637815950

We forgive, but don't ever forget.

by Noncents | 25th Nov 21, 2:16pm 1637803007

Is it not the point of the Deputy to become the leader?

If not, then what is the point of having one?

by ex agent | 25th Nov 21, 2:27pm 1637803656

Labour will not like this. Judith will never get National over the line. Anyone else has to be more of a problem at election time. The beginning of the end for the current government.

by Albert2020 | 25th Nov 21, 2:56pm 1637805388

Keep reti there.

by HouseMouse | 25th Nov 21, 3:33pm 1637807592

Not very charismatic

by Albert2020 | 25th Nov 21, 3:51pm 1637808662

Who cares, its his job to run the country, nothing else.

by HouseMouse | 25th Nov 21, 4:05pm 1637809551

I don't care much about charisma, but the reality is that the masses do.

For better or worse, politics is a popularity contest.

by Lord Dowding | 25th Nov 21, 7:25pm 1637821542

Not very charismatic yes but he’s smart, well spoken and Maori.

by Kate | 25th Nov 21, 11:21pm 1637835672

Bishop (leader) Reti (deputy). Or the other way around, but I think Bishop the better tactician and debater. Time the party let the liberal wing loose - it's where NZ is generally - especially NZ youth. And most importantly, religion in politics doesn't work here.

by GV 27 | 26th Nov 21, 7:37am 1637865459

IDK about Bishop. He's very Wellington-esque (which seems natural given he's in the Hutt) but Auckland's issues are drastically different to Wellington ones. He didn't seem to have a good grip on Light Rail, but then again neither did Labour even though it's their bloody policy. National need to learn that open-ended questions around congestion, housing and migration aren't something they can swat away with a new face, they actually need to come up with better answers than they did last time. If he really wants to be a reformer, he's going to need to accept that in some ways, the Nat's status quo is out of date and uninspiring.

by Whatwillhappen | 26th Nov 21, 10:01am 1637874084

Bishop is also an ex tobacco lobbyist. Which is worse? A former mercenary...I mean logistics consultant (Mitchell) or big tobacco?

by PocketAces | 26th Nov 21, 3:01pm 1637892079

Agree about the liberal bit, that is who we are really, but Bishop????

by Vivid | 25th Nov 21, 3:17pm 1637806674

Reti is the obvious choice

by Albert2020 | 25th Nov 21, 11:05pm 1637834730

I would have thought so but the MSM haven’t put his name forward as a potential candidate on the news this evening

by Wrong John | 25th Nov 21, 3:36pm 1637807781

A little too soon for me personally, but it was going to happen one way or another. JC wasn't doing it for anyone, except JA, so the (National caucus) majority decision was ''the sooner the better.'' Fair enough. Now the job that needs to be done can begin. The Nats can rebuild in the house & hopefully those at HQ can assist the process rather than make it worse. Hamilton should have gone at the last AGM. Perhaps it's still cold enough to rearrange the deckchairs, oh, sorry, I mean boardroom chairs. One thing's for sure, as has been suggested above already, there will be many from all walks of life interested in the next few days. It'll be a great watch.

by Chch Lass | 25th Nov 21, 4:51pm 1637812312

Cometh the hour, cometh the man. I have for a long time now thought Shane Reti the best choice for Leader of the National Party. Read his profile on the Parliamentary Web. He is highly electable, intelligent and would be very hard to criticise from the left.

I believe their best leader has been hiding in plain sight all this time - now is the time to actually see him there.

NZ is ready for a calm sensible leader, that is what we need now - someone on the right who can actually win the next election.

by HouseMouse | 25th Nov 21, 5:03pm 1637813038

He seems very good, but I still don't think he's PM material.

I would say he's a bit like B. English.

by vman | 25th Nov 21, 5:09pm 1637813393

Luxon insisted on being addressed as 'Christopher' when running Air NZ,since entering politics,he know calls himself "Chris",man of the people.He is a member of the Upper Room church which started in Tennessee in the 1930's.Take it from me,comments attributed to him during his time there left people in no doubt they were being led by a fundamentalist christian.Even his vaunted business acumen is over blown.He took over Air NZ during a sweet spot after Rob Fyfe & Ralph Norris did the hard yards turning the company around and developing the business and culture.Luxon took over just as the new fuel efficient 787's arrived,fuel prices at historical lows and at a time when Air NZ had NO competition on the NZ-USA route enabling them to monopolise the route and price airfares accordingly.He came from a FMCG (grocer) background so it was all about dollars and cent margins and as any high value Air NZ customer will tell you,he slowly unwound the product and service to save a buck,maixmise short term profits and in doing so,maximising his bonus payments.Then when headwinds appeared and it was obvious the 'easy' times were over,he bailed to ensure he wasn't at the helm during a downturn...so in short,a clever man,but most of it in self centered ego driven way...God save us as he would say...

by paashaas | 25th Nov 21, 5:55pm 1637816141

"Take it from me " - says it all . No thank you .

by vman | 25th Nov 21, 6:05pm 1637816742

Or take it from some of the other 12,000 Air NZ staff members who were saying "Bring back Rob

by paashaas | 25th Nov 21, 6:08pm 1637816887

so you are the official spokes(wo)man for the "12,000 Air NZ staff members " ? or should I just take it from you ?

by vman | 25th Nov 21, 6:13pm 1637817182

Spokes (wo)(trans)man...possibly closer than you...or should I just take it that you know more...

by paashaas | 25th Nov 21, 6:14pm 1637817265

In other words you are not .. just "possibly" closer than me - in other words talking straight out of your behind .

by vman | 25th Nov 21, 6:23pm 1637817781

Well,I am giving you the benefit of the doubt,you might be Christophers wife for all I know...and leave my behind out of it... :-)

by vman | 25th Nov 21, 5:13pm 1637813592

Coming to a conservative government near you...

https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at-work/amanda-stoker-morrison-gov…

by Officebound | 25th Nov 21, 7:56pm 1637823391

Luxons a great communicator, but can an evangelical Christian who doesn't agree with gay marriage and legal abortion really capture the centre of NZ politics?

Mitchell, meh.

As a lefty, I kind of hope they pick Willis or Bishop, only hope they have of claiming the centre, I want a decent battle to drag Labour and the Greens a bit closer centre

by muzled | 25th Nov 21, 9:26pm 1637828774

Bishop comes across quite well but I can't get past the fact he lobbied for big tobacco.

You sell your soul when you do that.

Luxon and Mitchell are equally slimey and repugnant imo.

by FCM | 26th Nov 21, 2:03pm 1637888638

he'd be a shu in for the younger generation who are on their vapes then...

by MLSmith1 | 25th Nov 21, 9:06pm 1637827570

What a snow flake this Dean women is? Should not be in politics

by muzled | 25th Nov 21, 9:19pm 1637828368

I'm guessing she probably didn't want her name tied to it but she was (probably nigh on bullied) into taking one for the team.

That's based on zero knowledge, but why else would she do what she did?

by powerdownkiwi | 25th Nov 21, 10:33pm 1637832806

Dean is not that smart (per comm) but she's staunch. I hammered her once at a seminar/lecture she gave; she was on the wrong side of correct, totally offside with the lecture-theatre-full and I wasn't pulling punches, but she stuck it out.

As a politician, she has no original thinking, and is of the past. As are most. That is the point mot made here yet: Who is appropriate to lead through the future we are about to traverse? Because it is very different from the past we long to replicate.

National have a narative that is even more outdated than Labour's (and it is woefully off the pace); either they leapfrog Labour and out-relevant them, or they wither and die.

by lastredact | 26th Nov 21, 10:13am 1637874810

And there's this: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/mp-tries-to-ban-water/XM4GJ7XG3WC4ANBIFP2…

by Onafloatingrock | 26th Nov 21, 11:06am 1637878002

Good now get your heads down NATS and get your policy dialled for the next election. I couldn't care less if the leader gets on a magazine cover.... would prefer if this social housing mess, tax mess, who's water mess get sorted asap!

by dollar_bill | 26th Nov 21, 1:07pm 1637885222

What's wrong with Mitchell that they always sideline him. Seems quite good as a front man. He always makes sense when on the tele.

by EpsomArtsandCrafts | 27th Nov 21, 9:20am 1637958054

Chris Luxon is poles ahead of anyone else in parliament in terms of CV and skillset - has anyone else been a CEO of a NZX50 company? Compare that to the backgrounds of the current cabinet ministers.

Stuff news won't like him of course because they are all trendy lefties.