Heather du Plessis-Allan: The Sam Uffindell saga: why National needs to sort out its selections

OPINION:

Sam Uffindell doesn't deserve to be punished for the stupid things he did at 16. But he's not being punished for that. He's being punished for the stupid selections his party has made over the last five-plus years.

If Uffindell belonged to another party he probably wouldn't be facing the possible end of his career. If he belonged to a party in which he was the only young male MP with a problematic record, he'd be cut some slack.

But he doesn't belong to another party. He belongs to the National Party, and it's a party with a track record of choosing young men who look good in suits but who (at some time, in some way) have been accused of abusing their power.

Jake Bezzant, who abused his power over his ex-girlfriend by allegedly sending explicit pictures of her to other men online.

Todd Barclay, who allegedly abused his power over a staff member by secretly recording her conversations.

Andrew Falloon, who abused his power over women by allegedly sending sexually explicit messages.

Now, Uffindell, who abused the power of age and numbers by beating a younger student at King's private school.

If the Nats were wise they would've left Sam Uffindell for another election. Photo / Mark Mitchell

The message this sends voters is that the Nats don't really care all that much about how nice boys in suits behave. The Nats care very much about how gang members and kiddie ram-raiders behave. They keep telling the public how cross they are about those people. But boys in suits are apparently treated differently.

To some that sounds like born-to-rule toff arrogance.

Because of the National Party's recent history with boys in suits behaving badly, the bar is so much higher for them than any other party.

They need to smarten up quick. They're no longer just the Opposition. Given the recent polls, they're now also a possible Government in waiting. And they will be attacked accordingly.

The Nats have more enemies than their behaviour suggests they realise. Labour has reason to come after them. Labour doesn't want to lose the government benches. But Act has just as much reason to weaponise any weakness. Act is the frenemy to the right that wants to steal as many voters off National as it can.

Luxon says the party is frustrated right now. It should be. This is the second week in a row it is defending itself in the media when it should be attacking the Government. This week Uffindell drowned out the TVNZ poll that showed Labour would lose the next election. Last week National's flip-flopping on policy prevented it from properly prosecuting the Government's cost-of-living payment snafu.

It's hard to gauge how many voters will turn off National over this week's own goals. Many won't care. They'll feel it's wrong to punish Uffindell for youthful bad behaviour. But others will deduce that if National can't manage its selection process it might not be able to manage the Beehive. Act will probably be the beneficiary of those people.

National is simply handing its smaller friend more and more power in possible post-election negotiations.

If the Nats were wise they would've left Uffindell for another election. He would still have been a strong contender for selection when this run of bad choices is ancient history. After all, he shouldn't be punished for things he did 22 years ago. But he was never a good selection for the election where the party has a problem with young men in suits abusing their power.