Why National’s race could become messy

Judith Collins isn’t winning many hearts and minds in the National caucus with her fullthrottle bid for the National Party leadership. But she may be winning the PR war in the heartland.

Under National’s rules that won’t count for much, however. It’s the caucus who get to vote and few of them are backing Collins. So, what’s her game? Collins is talking over the top of the caucus and reaching out to the wider grassroots activists and members.

Her strategy is to force a groundswell of support from the grassroots, and local electorate committees, and stir up a barrage of texts and emails asking MPs to back her.

Her colleagues will have to think twice before writing her off. Or that’s the plan. It’s also Collins’ only hope of winning the leadership.

Or she may be playing the long game. Labour’s David Cunliffe forced a grassroots revolt that changed the way Labour’s leaders are elected.

National hasn’t seen a leadership contest like this in more than a decade.

There are huddled meetings in the corridors and late-night texts and phone calls, as the horse trading and wheeling and dealing begins. Most of the MPs won’t have known anything like it.

Yet so far this has been a relatively polite affair.

The way of National Party leadership contests in the days of old was bloody, brutal and unforgiving. That could still come of course. So far there are only three contenders, Collins, Simon Bridges and Amy Adams.

Finance spokesman Steven Joyce is yet to show his hand, as is former hostage negotiator Mark Mitchell. If it turns into a five-way contest, it’s all on.

The Nats are being typically tightlipped about the race, but on Collins they are all remarkably in agreement. ‘‘No show’’, is about the politest assessment of her chances.

But Collins isn’t pulling back. She’s got two weeks to build a case with the wider party.

She flew out of the gates hard and fast. She didn’t do the numbers (why bother).

She didn’t mince her words and she didn’t waste her time talking about her CV. Everyone knows Crusher Collins.

She didn’t waste much breath on her rivals either. Why talk about Bridges or Adams when the real contest is with Labour?

So Collins talked about a plan. And she talked about Jacinda Ardern.

Love her or hate her – and you’re either one or the other with Collins, there is no middle ground – no-one will ever die wondering if Collins wants the leadership badly enough.

So when Collins tells you she’s got Ardern’s measure you better believe the next three years under a Collins-led National Party would be a blood sport.

Grab the popcorn and pull up a seat.

And that’s the biggest weakness in Collins’ strategy to beat Simon Bridges and Amy Adams.

Collins is the leader you turn to when National is at rock bottom and gasping for oxygen – like 2002, the year Collins entered Parliament with a couple of other rookies, Sir John Key and Don Brash.

Brash and Key both went on to lead the party. And in both cases, their leadership was about time and place.

Brash was widely considered un-electable, even by his own colleagues.

But he was installed in a desperate bid to bring voters back home to National after a 21 per cent election-night drubbing.

Brash’s hard line on Ma¯ori and law and order, and his belated conversion from social liberal to social conservative, had the ‘‘Jacinda effect’’ of those times.

National’s support almost doubled overnight.

But a Brash government would have imploded – John Key was the leader National needed to reach out to women, and centrist voters, to turn National into a three-term government. When Key left, Bill English represented a seamless transition.

A Collins candidacy is about rocking the boat, shaking the party out of its complacency, overturning the status quo.

Except the status quo still seems to be working for National.

And that’s the big unknown in this leadership contest.

Voters have stuck like barnacles to National through the last decade; it was the most popular party on election night, and is still the most popular party now – even up against a prime minister at the height of her honeymoon.

Ardern’s brand is strong, but the Labour brand still has some catching up to do.

There was an assumption the tide would go out on National after it ended up back in Opposition. But so far that hasn’t happened. The manner of its ousting has given it underdog status, and the public always loves an underdog.

How much of that was down to Bill English? Nobody knows. There was a lot of pressure for English to stay on longer for that reason. But in the end, his heart wasn’t in it.

So now MPs are going to have to make that judgment call. Adams and Bridges bring generational change, but without representing a major shift in direction.

They are the compassionate conservative face of the party, in the mold of English and Key.

Both are also smart and thoughtful and if they throw their lot in together as a ticket it would be seen as a safe pair of hands.

Bridges probably has the edge on Adams, if only because he comes across as more authentic and empathetic. Adams is almost too polished.

But is familiarity the secret to winning in three years’ time? Or is this contest about National needing to confront change?

National’s MPs have about 10 days to figure that out.

Yet so far this has been a relatively polite affair.