Damien Grant is an Auckland business owner and a regular opinion contributor for Stuff, writing from a libertarian perspective.

OPINION: When we look back to the turbulent years of 1984 to 1990 we think of Sir Roger Douglas, Richard Prebble, Mike Moore and Michael Bassett. Almost forgotten, an afterthought, a curious historical anomality, was the prime minister. Lange someone.

David Lange. That was his name. Prime Minister for the first five years of a remarkable government that unleashed decades of economic growth and prosperity. Now. I am going to outline a thesis that has been building in my mind for some months, but before I do, some context.

I’m not a journalist. I don’t mix in the saloons and late nights at Bellamy’s to build networks, cultivate contracts and relationships to gain insights. My interactions with politicians are mostly restricted to the Koru Lounge and surreptitious cups of tea with those MPs willing to talk to me.

Oh. And in the final seven weeks, myself and perpetual student politician and perennially frustrated broadcaster Martyn Bradbury toured the country at the TaxPayers’ Union’s expense hosting a series of debates. I can’t claim any special insight was gained, but it was an opportunity to observe National MPs and prospective MPs as they debated, deflected, and disseminated on the issues of the day.

Here is what I think.

The leadership of National, that being Luxon and his close confidants, are cautious. They wish to remain in office for three terms and believe they have the ability to turn the country around through prudent management and sensible reforms. They are in the mould of Sir Key and English, who believe in stable economic fiscal management and competent administration.

They are not radical nor are they ideological. They see themselves as responsible and pragmatic. There are many senior and less senior figures in National who subscribe to this worldview. They may even be the majority.

However, inside that caucus are a collection of frustrated politicians who believe the party wasted the opportunity during its last tenure in power. They understand not only the scale of the challenge New Zealand is facing, especially in its fiscal settings and failing education sector, but sense the size of the opportunity on offer.

These MPs are closer to Act than Jim Bolger in their worldview and want radical change.

And they have allies; and not just in Act. Winston Peters has brought some interesting individuals into parliament with him. Casey Costello was a board member, and deputy chair, of the free-market activist group the TaxPayers Union, thanked and served alongside Ruth Richardson.

That Peters selected her, and at number three on the list, is a sign of his thinking at this stage of his career. Interestingly, both former Wellington Mayor Andy Foster and returning NZ First MP Mark Patterson, have been involved with the National Party in the past; although little can or should be read into that.

Act, as has been well documented, has an aggressive agenda and is playing to win. They didn’t hit the numbers they wanted but have a potent mix of raw political talent in Brooke van Velden and Nicole McKee, but also policy-focused MPs such as Simon Court and farming legend Andrew Hoggard.

It is unclear what NZ First wants this time around. Presumably, Peters would like to see the scrapping of the SmokeFree Aotearoa, agenda that would see it illegal for anyone to purchase full-strength cigarettes from April 2025.

It is easy to be cynical about NZ First but behind the shenanigans and donation scandals there is a clear ideology. Peters is an economic nationalist; he is wary of overseas investment and partial to large-scale state infrastructure.

These can probably be accommodated without derailing negotiations. More of a challenge will be reconciling Peter’s support for a dual mandate for the Reserve Bank with National and Act’s insistence that the bank return to a sole focus on monetary stability. However, there does appear to be genuine concern in NZ First at the state of the nation’s accounts.

But, back to my primary thesis. Within the fabric of the three parties that will be required to co-operate, regardless of how the final numbers and the Port Waikato election shake out, are powerful forces wanting to move much faster and more decisively than it appears Luxon is comfortable with.

Lange lacked the authority to reign in Douglas and his acolytes. He was their leader and was forced to follow them. Lange was also a prisoner of events and a public service determined to impose the necessary economic medicine to avoid falling into the hands of the IMF.

Luxon has more room, and time, to manoeuvre if he wishes to use the power of his office and accumulated political capital to resist making drastic change. There will be a struggle for the soul of this administration between those who favour a gradual and incremental improvement and those, from all three parties, who want drastic and permanent change.

The Fourth Labour government ultimately imploded over the unresolved tensions between the cautious Lange and the aggressive Douglas; and they were all in the same party. Luxon’s challenge isn’t exactly analogous, but the similarities are too significant to ignore.

May the radicals prevail.