What’s the point of Bridges leak?

Quite apart from the fact we have no firm idea who leaked National Party leader Simon Bridges’ expenses, ahead of their official release by the Parliamentary Service next week, it’s difficult to know exactly what the leaker hoped to achieve beyond a lot of shoulder-shrugging.

If it was to get a story loaded with clickbaity phrases like ‘‘spending up large’’, ‘‘splashing cash’’ and ‘‘travelling the country by road and in style’’ into circulation – Bridges’ response to the suggestion his spending was excessive wasn’t mentioned until paragraph 11 – the leak succeeded admirably. But if the point was to try to swing public opinion against the Opposition leader, that seems a little far-fetched, as does the possibility it might have been intended to throw shade on Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s Labour-led government, by inviting suspicion that her party was the source.

Surely the average New Zealander would see through the round of finger-pointing that might follow what looks like a bit of a ‘‘beat-up’’, and come to the conclusion it was? We’re two yearsplus out from the next general election. Blows landed this early in the three-year cycle give those on the receiving end every chance of a robust recovery by polling time.

Yesterday, Ardern was quick to say she could ‘‘categorically rule it out’’ when asked if the leak came from her party, pointing out that the only groups with access to Bridges’ expenses were National, and Speaker of the House Trevor Mallard, who did not attend Labour caucus meetings. That was confirmed by a spokeswoman for the Parliamentary Service, which naturally has access to the information as the agency responsible for releasing it.

Bridges was quick to say the leak had not come from his caucus, though he conceded he did not have ‘‘perfect information on that’’. Mallard said he had launched an inquiry into the leak’s source, and also cast doubt on the accuracy of the figures.

But assuming they are accurate, and Bridges, with his reported tally of $83,693, indeed spent $35,000 more on travel in a Crown limousine over the past three months than then-Opposition leader Andrew Little did in the corresponding period last year, so what?

It’s widely known he has just completed a 12-week ‘‘national town hall roadshow’’, holding close to 70 meetings around the country. As the first person chosen to lead his party in opposition after a long period in government, that seems entirely reasonable. Leaders in his position often find, in the medium to long term, they’ve been handed a poisoned chalice, as a series of Labour leaders after Helen Clark, and Bill English in his first dig as National leader, could confirm.

The idea of Bridges as a future prime minister has struggled to gain traction, despite polling continuing to show National remains the most popular individual party.

That may or may not be down to comparisons with Ardern, but he can hardly be criticised for putting himself out there and trying to build connections with voters. If he does go the way many in his position have, he’ll at least be able to say he gave the role a decent crack. And as for his transport, why would he not use what is available to him as leader of the Opposition?

‘‘If [Bridges] does go the way many in his position have, he’ll at least be able to say he gave the role a decent crack. And as for his transport, why would he not use what is available to him?’’