“Death spiral” was the phrase used by Matthew Hooton in Metro, “paranoid storms” by Judith Collins’ ex press secretary Janet Wilson in The Spinoff, and Newstalk ZB host Heather du Plessis-Allan proclaimed “Judith Collins must go.”

Everyone seems to be singing from the same songbook: the National party is wounded right now, possibly terminally. 

This drumbeat of disintegration was confirmed by terrible poll results last week with a slump to 21.2%. That’s barely above their worst-ever electoral result of 20.93% almost 20 years ago.

One thing is certain; when National is weak, the unexpected casualty is Labour.

While many insist leadership is the chief ill, philosophic questions of what the party actually stands for, and an appetite for bigger government post-pandemic could also be to blame. COVID-19 has created identity crises for other centre-right parties, like Boris Johnson’s Conservatives.

One thing is certain; when National is weak, the unexpected casualty is Labour.

You see, Labour’s vitality relies on a strong National Party. As depleted as National may be, with just 33 seats in the House, it remains the leading political opposition party. As such it plays a necessary part in the efficacy of governing.

Ours is a Westminster system where the winner takes all. But as Australian academic Bruce Stone has noted, this makes the chamber a place where the next election is litigated. It’s how future governments get themselves match-fit politically.

When opposition parties spend their days in civil war, they’re distracted from core business: doing democracy’s dirty work of scrutinising government.

As in business, in politics competition produces innovation. The reverse is a danger of complacency, even arrogance, with government taking its power and position for granted. And a diminished opposition will be electorally smaller. As Stone notes, “a small opposition … weakens the government’s sense that it is under challenge and that it needs, as a result, to remain responsive to public concerns expressed by the parliamentary opposition.” National’s size and strength ideally ensures a true contest of visions for our country. 

There’s an even more important loser: us, the voters. When opposition parties spend their days in civil war, they’re distracted from core business: doing democracy’s dirty work of scrutinising government.

“In Westminster-derived systems of parliamentary government…” writes Stone, “a persistently small opposition represents the removal of one of the few institutional checks on government.” He adds that, where opposition parties don’t have the potential to check government through a second chamber, this exacerbates a “tendency to overbearing government”. Moreover, “…oppositions which displace, or substantially displace, governments fairly regularly are arguably more conducive, other things being equal, to governmental accountability.” 

While greater accountability might limit the amount of things that a government can do, it also restricts missteps and provides a protection against unintended consequences. Those laws made, and policies created, are truly the best for our country. 

So the next time you hear about drama in the National party, don’t just be concerned about a leader or an organisation; think of the wider context. People (and governments) are best served by a loyal, strong, healthy opposition—without one, we’re less ourselves.