Why Christopher Luxon outlasted Keir Starmer

Tuesday, 23 June 2026

Luke Malpass is associate editor of The Post.

ANALYSIS: A little over six months ago there was a fun bet doing the rounds in Parliament: Who would remain prime minister longer, the UK’s Keir Starmer or New Zealand’s Christopher Luxon?

On Monday night (NZT), we got our answer. Christopher Luxon — and apparently by considerably more than a nose.

Starmer, elected May 2024, is gone and Luxon, elected in October 2023, is decidedly in place.

The reason for the informal bet was ultimately similar in both cases. Both men had risen to significant heights in their previous professional careers, but neither is a natural or effective politician. Both led governments or parties languishing in the polls. And in both cases there had been a decent level of internal dissatisfaction with their personal styles, leadership and performance.

So it was that late last year, after UK Ambassador to Washington Peter Mandelson was sacked over questions about the disclosure of his relationship with the former prime minister, Starmer's judgement and position as prime minister came under serious scrutiny.

There had long been red flags around Mandelson, stretching back to the Tony Blair years and even the last century. Former Labour spin doctor and enforcer Alastair Campbell famously diarised concerns about Mandelson's 'lifestyle ambitions'.

The Starmer Government also struggled to articulate an electorally compelling explanation of what was wrong with Britain and how it intended to fix it.

Like Luxon, Starmer was elected amid a cost-of-living crisis. But, in reality, much of Labour's victory reflected the exhaustion of a Conservative government plagued by scandal, leadership changes and long past its use-by date.

Similarly, Luxon came to office after a Labour Government that had lost a popular prime minister, borne the political costs of governing through Covid-19 and the inflation surge that followed - and during the Hipkins period a bunch of scandals.

Despite both taking office with comfortable parliamentary majorities, neither secured an especially impressive share of the vote in their respective political systems.

Both have struggled to connect with voters and have polled poorly on a personal level. Luxon's sometimes baffling corporate jargon has followed him throughout his premiership, while Starmer's legalistic and technocratic style could render him almost indecipherable.

Both employed small-target strategies in opposition and neither man is particularly ideological. In fact, the thing they arguably had most in common was a belief that they would make competent prime ministers.

So why has Luxon survived while Starmer has not?

First, New Zealand simply lacks a culture of rolling prime ministers.

Second, while Luxon himself may not be particularly ideological, this Government does possess a reasonably coherent account of what is wrong with New Zealand and what needs fixing — whether one agrees with it or if it is successfully doing so is another matter. That is no small achievement for a coalition whose constituent parties have significant disagreements over both government spending and the role of the state in the economy.

Starmer never seemed to establish that kind of narrative.

But lastly — and perhaps most importantly — there is no Andy Burnham in the National Party.

There is a good chance Starmer might have survived, or at least survived considerably longer, had it not been for the King in the North of British politics.

Luxon has almost certainly survived a couple of difficult periods because there has been no obvious rival or successor, either inside Parliament or outside it, capable of immediately assembling majority support within the caucus.

With a degree of political cunning, Luxon managed to neutralise much of the leadership speculation by bringing forward a confidence vote in his leadership in April. Since then, leadership rumblings have largely dissipated, despite National's support remaining stuck around 29%.

It is worth remembering that Starmer previously used Labour Party rules to block Burnham from contesting a by-election.

When Burnham eventually got the opportunity to contest Makerfield — hardly a safe Labour seat in the circumstances — he not only won, but substantially increased Labour's vote share while comfortably defeating Reform, the insurgent force in British politics.

He did more than win. He demonstrated, in at least one significant data point, an ability to succeed against the prevailing political tide.

The question now facing Britain is whether Burnham can take over, dominate the political landscape and potentially seek an early election.

If Luxon cannot improve National's fortunes before November 7, even if retaining the Treasury benches, there is every chance he could suffer Sir Keir's fate shortly afterwards.