It was a masterful piece of politicking yesterday from the Prime Minister. The first time I think I've seen him as a politician rather than a CEO. He told his caucus to put up or shut up. He sent a message to the disaffected and the dissatisfied in the party to lay their cards on the table. And when it came down to it, the halt, the lame, and the dispossessed simply didn't have the numbers, the alternative, or the cajónes to make a challenge. 

If you're a member or a supporter of National, of course you're not going to like the numbers the polls are delivering. You're not going to like seeing your leader languishing in the doldrums in the preferred Prime Minister poll. But I would venture you would like even less backbenchers fomenting dissent and giving the media a reason to write about the party for all the wrong reasons. Mike named the feckless five yesterday. They claim they had nothing to do with any leaks to the media. They have all pledged their fealty to their leader, Christopher Luxon, and I only hope he made them kiss his ring yesterday to prove their faithfulness and their loyalty. I think, but then I would, wouldn't I, that Christopher Luxon has come out of yesterday's caucus meeting looking stronger than he did last week. He stared them in the eye, said show me what you've got. Not quite enough is it lads and lasses? And off they went.  

But what do you do if you're in one of the feckless five's electorates and you're brassed off with them? You might not want to give them your vote, but then if you don't vote for them, it harms the National Party. Do you give your electorate vote to ACT or New Zealand First and your party vote to National? And when you vote for an electorate MP, are you voting for someone who will act in your interests first or in the party's interests? When you look at anybody, I mean these five say they didn't do it. They were named as the ones and when you're talking to the media, the thing is the media know who you are. So it makes it a little difficult. Joseph Mooney, Tim van de Molen, Barbara Kuriger, Andrew Bayly, and Sam Uffindell all say it wasn't me. The old Shaggy song springs to mind. But that's the thing, they say it wasn't them; they've pledged loyalty. 

But if you are, and when you look at the previous coups, if you're one of those who jumps on board a coup, who decides that they will put their money on a different horse, you're basically lazy. Because being a backbencher is hard work. There's nothing glamorous about it. It is boring, it is thankless, there are no baubles of office, no perks of the job – it is a hard grind. At least when you get to minister level you get the car, more money, and you get people who kind of respect you and you get to make a difference. You get to make change through the hard work of drafting policy and working with bureaucrats and working with other members of Parliament. But you can actually get things done. As a backbencher you can't. It's really, really boring. So what people who jump ship do is look to leapfrog over other backbenchers because they get rewarded. If they cosy up to somebody who's mounting a challenge, they can expect to get rewarded with a plum job and not have to do the hard graft. So they're lazy as well as feckless. 

There are so many people who have benefited from this dissent: Labour, New Zealand First. Although yesterday with his confidence call, I'd argue Christopher Luxon did get some benefit from that. Anybody who is unhappy with the leadership, anybody who is not willing to do the hard graft on the backbenches and get the good jobs through sheer talent and hard work, anybody who is willing to sacrifice the good of the party for personal ambition, anybody who's willing to tell fibs should resign. Put up or shut up and shove off.