Gone by lunch-time

Assuming that lunch-time is one o'clock, then Simon Bridges was, indeed, gone by lunch-time. Though, when Don Brash pronounced that famous phrase, he certainly didn't have Simon in mind. Personally, I feel it was the best move. I, and others I know, could not have voted for a National Party with Simon Bridges as its leader. The nation seemed to be of the same opinion if the polls were anything to go by.

Looking from the outside, the problem with Simon was that he appeared to be a 'one-trick pony'. He will blame COVID and Jacinda's wall-to-wall media coverage for his demise, but that was simply the situation that exposed his shortcomings. "My job is to hold the government to account", and other variations on that theme, summed up Simon's self-professed mission. One commentator described him as a "yapping terrier" and that's pretty close.

My impression was of a school-room bully. The guy who, when another pupil gets called to the front, will stick out his foot to trip them up. At times it seemed as if it were the only tool in Simon's repertoire. For a short while there, as head of the COVID committee, it started to appear as if, in the midst of a national crisis, he was taking a more statesman-like role - pulling together for the common good. But, apparently, he couldn't keep it up and quickly reverted to his sniping, nit-picking, bullying tactics. The nation watched it, knew viscerally that they didn't like it, and told the pollsters what they thought.

Yes, Simon, you did need to hold the government to account. But it wasn't your only role, and there are many ways of doing it, aside from looking like the person everyone hated from school. Gone by lunch-time, indeed.

David and Goliath

Reading the political tea-leaves this week has been interesting; so many half-understood facts slipped noisily into place. I refer, of course, to the Jami-Lee Ross and Simon Bridges saga - a true David and Goliath battle which, in this case, will be memorable for both protagonists being slain.

Bridges completely misread the narrative that was playing out. He was working on the "will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" narrative and, when the expenses leak came to light, clearly thought that the Speaker and the House, in general, would do his dirty work for him - why else make such a big hoo-ha over what should have been a non-issue?

Fortunately, as things unravelled, the Speaker of the House saw the gambit for what it was, cancelled the inquiry and tossed the hot potato back to National. Bridges still fixated on removing JLR, decided to run his own inquiry and pressed on with the turbulent priest narrative. This was a very bad call for Bridges: turbulent priest plays out undercover with mercenary actors who can take the blame (think Saudi embassy in Turkey). JRL however, backed into a corner with only a few pebbles in his pocket, comes out swinging, revealing the underlying David and Goliath narrative.

Bridges now finds himself exposed in the public arena acting out a narrative detestable to the National Party. No one wins here. The David and Goliath story is famous only because it is the one in a thousand situation where the David actually wins. The odds of JLR winning in any meaningful way, are infinitesimal. But Bridges has already lost because this should never have played out in public and the cost to the National Party's reputation is huge. Dead Goliath walking.