The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) was also asked to clarify whether correspondence from its staff backed up Winston Peters\u2019 staff\u2019s characterisation. <\/p>\n
Twenty-four hours later, nearly a day after deadline, a spokesperson came back with a terse \u201cDPMC has no comment to make\u201d and said it stood by its Official Information Act response.<\/p>\n
The statement\u2019s brevity contrasted sharply with the length of time it took to draft (it works out at about one character every 14 minutes \u2013 David Seymour\u2019s effort to improve public sector productivity clearly hasn\u2019t made itself felt in public sector communications departments). <\/p>\n
The war has derailed the coalition\u2019s election plan.<\/p>\n
It should have been fighting for re-election against the backdrop of hard-won economic recovery, potentially turning its narrow lead over the left bloc into a larger and more stable one.<\/p>\n
Now, the coalition occasionally polls behind the left bloc, and senior ministers are using the time they\u2019d planned to spend on attacking Labour and praising the recovering economy, explaining why everything that\u2019s going wrong is the fault of the war and not Luxon himself. <\/p>\n
That\u2019s not untrue. <\/p>\n
Foreign Minister Winston Peters. Photo \/ Mark Mitchell <\/p>\n
A small number of economists disagree, but a large number believed some form of economic recovery was underway earlier this year.<\/p>\n
However, that has been blown apart by the Iran war, which has hiked inflation, dampened growth, and shredded consumer and business confidence.<\/p>\n
Thanks to the war, time the Government would have spent trumpeting its own magnificence and attacking Labour is now spent responding to the economic shocks of the war \u2013 and explaining why the very negative economic effects are not its fault (Finance Minister Nicola Willis\u2019s seminar last week on Treasury economic forecasts was a masterclass of the form).<\/p>\n
But this has all been undermined by Luxon\u2019s personal support for the war in its early days.<\/p>\n
National MPs now know that every time they try to blame something on the war, everyone from Labour to New Zealand First will unhelpfully remind voters that this horrible, damaging war was initially supported by their own leader<\/a>.<\/p>\n Explaining away the pain caused by the war was challenging enough as it is; Labour struggled in the aftermath of the full Russia-Ukraine war, and it had a vastly more popular leader in Dame Jacinda Ardern.<\/p>\n But now, knowing Luxon supported the war at its outset, makes explaining the war\u2019s effects close to impossible. <\/p>\n Labour has already begun running ads which headline the latest bad news from the conflict (on Friday it was news oil prices will stay high for months) with text reminding voters that Luxon wanted to support the strikes.<\/p>\n Expect plenty more of them.<\/p>\n National MPs face the double dilemma of having to explain why things are so bad \u2013 and why their leader wanted to give his backing to the conflict that lies at the source of all this misery.<\/p>\n Small wonder, then, that none of the National ministers canvassed by the Herald lent their support to Luxon\u2019s position on the war on Thursday \u2013 all did, however, back Luxon himself. <\/p>\n An uncharitable (and metaphor mixing) reading of this jostling is ministers are trying to get close enough to Luxon to snatch the Crown, but not so close that they go down with his sinking ship.<\/p>\n Luxon played the episode as well as he could have. <\/p>\n