Why Chris Bishop admitted he would likely lose Hutt South
Thursday, 23 July 2026
ANALYSIS: Chris Bishop told the truth on Tuesday when he admitted to reporters it was “highly unlikely” he would win his seat on current polling.
It is fairly obvious that if National truly does get a result in the high 20s on election day, his 1300-vote majority in Hutt South would be toast. Add in the boundary changes that bring Labour-friendly Newlands into his electorate and public service cuts, and he could well lose the seat even if National was doing far better nationally. With list placements still up in the air he could be out of Parliament altogether.
But politicians are not usually honest about such things.
Judith Collins said two days before the 2020 election that there was an “enormous amount of support” for her party and she did not trust the polls. Chris Hipkins told media in the dying days of the 2023 campaign that a path to victory was emerging. Even no-hopers like Labour’s Max Harris ‒ running for a seat Labour last won in 1957 ‒ is wary of admitting potential defeat.
So why would the very experienced Bishop let slip how bad a result that low would be for him personally?
Read more:
Chris Bishop says it is 'highly unlikely' he would win Hutt South on latest polling
‘Laziest MP I’ve come across’: Stuart Nash comments on MP’s parental leave sexist, PM says
At some level it was likely be an off-the-cuff remark delivered quickly and regretted just as rapidly. Bishop is a fluent minister in standups, able to bat ideas around with far more ease and rapidity than many other MPs. He does not like to appear obfuscatory or like he is repeating lines drafted for him by someone else.
Verbal fluency generally treats MPs well ‒ it simply looks better on TV if you can respond to complex questions well without lots of “uhs” or canned lines ‒ but it can get you in trouble. Nicola Willis, who is just as fluent as Bishop, walked herself into some trouble earlier this year when she suggested social housing tenants had “won the lotto”.
For all that, Bishop has been happier than most of his colleagues to talk about the fact that polling in the 20s is not a happy place for National. While Luxon generally refuses to comment on polls, Bishop is happier to say things like “we obviously want to be higher than what we’re on at the moment” (a month ago, in response to a TVNZ poll), or that another TVNZ poll was “not a great result”.
It’s clear that Bishop does not think not talking about bad polls will make them go away. He would quite like the rest of the party ‒ from the ninth floor to the volunteers on the ground to the colleagues in safer seats than him ‒ to do all they can to get the polling up.
The security blanket parties in trouble always wrap themselves in, where they question whether the polls can really be trusted, harms his ability to get this message across.
Bishop is not alone in wanting the party to shake itself awake. While Luxon noted in a rare comment on the polls that they would still see the coalition returned to power, National Party president Sylvia Wood told The Post last month that any result with National behind Labour was “not good enough”. There are others within and around the party who have found the campaign thus far uninspiring.
It’s also worth nothing that Bishop is widely reported to have pushed for a change of leader from Luxon. That push was followed by Luxon stripping serious power from Bishop ‒ taking away his leader of the house role and his campaign chair position. This leaves Bishop outside of the inner circle of the campaign, on the sidelines and not pleased about it.
A large question remains over the National Party this campaign. Can it stay publicly unified and positive if it is on track to hold onto Government, but do so while losing some of its biggest names and future prospects?