Barry Soper: Someone's out to get Simon Bridges. They'll likely succeed

COMMENT: Here's me last week talking about the Machiavellian nature of Australian politics and how at least in this country we're more transparent.

Leadership contests here in recent years, with the exception of Jenny Shipley knifing Jim Bolger in the back when he was overseas, have been pretty straight forward.

A leader steps aside and there's a relatively orderly, if not contested, process that follows. John Key broke that mould to some extent though when he declared his intention to run for the top job before Don Brash declared the position vacant.

But what's going on in the National Party at the moment would make Machiavelli look like the parish priest. Simon Bridges has every reason to be looking over his shoulder, someone's out to get him and will more than likely succeed.

A person claiming to be the National Party leaker of his travel expenses sent an anonymous text to Bridges and to Parliament's Speaker Trevor Mallard pleading for the inquiry into the leak to be called off, citing mental health problems.

Bridges didn't do himself any favours by the way he responded to the leak of his travel expenses, which in itself was hardly the shock of the century.

His use of ministerial limos to increase his profile around the country, which he's entitled to, shows a sense of entitlement. There are more cost effective ways of getting around but there was no direct cost to the taxpayer who own the limos. It's simply a ledger entry between departments.

But flying in the storm troopers, National's heavy hitters, to stand behind him as he responded to the text was an overkill. It led to the perception that running up expenses is of little consequence to him.

So the storm in the teacup has become a poison chalice for Bridges after the hunt for the leaker was launched and then by week's end canned by Parliament's Speaker Trevor Mallard.

The cops were called in by Bridges, who said the mentally impaired person was receiving the treatment they needed so the inquiry was safe to go ahead. The cops wouldn't tell Bridges the name of the texter who they'd tracked down and he claims he didn't know who it was.

But this was undoubtedly an inside job to undermine his leadership. The texter obviously knew his cellphone number and that of the Speaker and knew the workings of Parliament and the way National's caucus operates.

In cancelling the inquiry Mallard was in no doubt: the texter and the leaker were one and the same person and said they had details of events that anyone outside the National Party wouldn't be privy to.

Still National maintains it's determined to find out who it is. But if that's the case why did Bridges say the process would mean MPs would have to give their consent to their systems being checked which they're unlikely to agree to, so what's the point?

To know the enemy from within but perhaps the truth is too hard to bear.