Paul Little: As Bill English vacates National leadership - what took him so long?

The decision of Bill English, after 27 years in Parliament, to resign from the position of leader of the National Party five months after their defeat in the September general election raises a number of interesting questions:

Presuming he was helped to his decision by members of his party, what took them so long?

Should we even care who will lead the National Party to defeat at the next election or, as Labour are calling it, "the baby shower"?

Does this mean Bill can finally get that tattoo?

And finish that mix tape for Todd Barclay?

Does he understand that when the Ted Talk people say no, they mean no?

Is the Dipton Rotary Club ready for the shake-up that's coming its way?

How will Lorde cope in a world where, for the first time since she was born, Bill English isn't trying to become Prime Minister?

Twenty-seven years is a remarkably long stretch – how many other people would take that long to get the message?

What is it about politics that makes someone so reluctant to give up when their inability to do their one job – become Prime Minister - has been proved time and time again?

In 2002, English lost the general election and was replaced by Don Brash. How bad do you have to be at a job for Brash to be seen as a preferable alternative?

Why are National MPs not taking Brash's calls this week?

Or Peter Dunne's?

English spoke to at least one journalist immediately before announcing his departure and managed not to give it away, should we be admiring his genius for discretion or for dissembling?

English received numerous fulsome encomia from all sides at his announcement – so many, indeed, that you would have to ask what kind of praise he would have drawn had his government's pernicious policies not wreaked havoc on children, the ill, the homeless and other vulnerable sections of society?

Was it fair to force those people who, through a lifetime of enmity, have worked to defeat and undermine him at every turn to say what a top bloke they think he is?

Can you blame Winston for not?

And could Winston be having any more fun this year?

Given the number of people who said they have no interest in the leadership role, isn't it some kind of miracle that so many candidates have been found at short notice?

Should we commend their transparency in not even attempting to reconcile their febrile, foaming-mouthed, red-eyed, lip-quivering, hyperventilating, backstabbing manoeuvring to get the job with their previous claims that English had their full support?

Will potential candidates have to win Mike Hosking's heart in the Date Night section?

Why, when running through the candidates and their chances, do commentators always call her "Even Judith Collins"?

And speaking of commentary, how many sentences as confusing as this one from TVNZ will we encounter in commentary over the coming days: "The leadership vote to be conducted by National's caucus within the next two weeks may well turn out to be the ballot that those who end up contesting the party's top job might well prefer to lose"?

Given the unappetising nature of the potential candidates, shouldn't National consider resting the leadership position until someone with electable potential gets voted into Parliament on the party's ticket?

Isn't it likely that that person has already been born – we just don't know who they are yet?

Has anyone done Vladimir Putin the basic courtesy of getting in touch to find out who he wants in the job?