At some stage in coming months, Bill English should announce that he intends stepping down as National's leader.
That will not be an easy thing to do. But it would be the wise thing to do.
Suggesting he stand down might seem odd advice, especially given English's assured performance in last September's election campaign and National being the party holding the most seats in Parliament — and by no small margin at that.
That success plus his flowering on the campaign trail plus the absence of anyone giving any real indication they might do the job better has led to the assumption that English's grip on the party's leadership remains secure.
He said he was not concerned about discipline within National Party ranks.
Those who argue his leadership is in that "safe" category need to ask themselves one question, however.
If his leadership really is safe, why did the matter suddenly turn into a brouhaha of not insignificant proportions this week?
One answer is the very mixed performance of Paula Bennett, his deputy.
In the wake of Wednesday's fuss, English did not shut the door completely to the possibility of his standing down.
The brutal truth is that the question of who will end up leading National into the next general election is going to be the story which refuses to die. And English well knows it.
The story will refuse to die because someone very much wants to keep it alive — the someone who sabotaged English's "state was of the nation" speech on Wednesday by feeding suggestions of leadership rumbles to the media ahead of English's delivery of his carefully-crafted address.
English has one thing going for him. He has time on his side. There is no need to rush to decision about his future.`
He will be under no illusions when assessing whether he should remain in the job. He is someone who in the past both mounted a successful leadership coup and who was deposed by one. No-one in National's caucus is as well grounded in politics played the tough and unforgiving National Party way.
If he is determined to stay, he enjoys a unique advantage over any pretenders to the throne. They would risk discovering National's popularity could well be a function of English. Dump him and National's current high level of support could melt away. The new leader would be crippled from day one.
But English similarly has to cope with a unique handicap.
He may have won the last election in terms of votes, but he lost the coalition negotiations which followed. The major Opposition party's only hope of a return to power is rapprochement with New Zealand First. Given the animosity and thirst for revenge displayed by Winston Peters towards English and Bennett, the wisdom of National going into the next election with the same leadership team is thus very much in question.
That will be regarded by some as something of a side issue. That is not the case. Being able to strike deals with other parties is an essential component in the only equation that matters to National —the power equation.
On that score, English failed to deliver. To be in a position to deliver power also requires maintaining support for National at its current level.
Those insisting English's grip on the leadership remains secure are looking in the rear-view mirror. English's survival is not contingent on what happened last September. It hinges on his party's confidence in his capacity to do likewise in 2020. It is contingent on him convincing his caucus he can again defeat Jacinda Ardern. The difference is that she will be prime minister, a role in which she daily goes from strength to strength.
Ardern's ascendancy was initially based on winning hearts. She is now winning minds — and big time. That makes her an even more formidable foe. Her critics can no longer dismiss her as a victory of style over substance.
The pay-off for her is the rise in her preferred prime rating. In her case, that measure is almost certain to go higher and could reach the heights which made Sir John Key virtually unbeatable.
In contrast, English's rating is on the decline.
Of equally serious worry for National's leader is that the more Ardern reinforces her so far impressive and unblemished performance as prime minister, the more likely Labour's poll rating will overhaul National's.
When that happens, National's willingness to allow English the luxury of losing three elections as leader will rapidly diminish.
Furthermore, English is faced with difficult circumstances which are beyond his control. The current chatter about "generational change" in politics as symbolised by Ardern's rise is of no comfort to English.
Having been in Parliament for the best part of 30 years, English represents National's past, not its future . That is simply a fact of life. There is nothing he can do about it.
Likewise, English can do little to stifle the pressure building within his caucus for a change at the top which is fuelled by the frustrated ambitions of impatient colleagues.
Key's manoeuvring which made English's installation into the leader's job a fait accompli and thus averted a leadership ballot, only succeeded in intensifying those pressures.
That pent-up frustration is another reason why the leadership story will refuse to die. From here-on, every word uttered by those MPs listed as potential successors to English will be analysed in that context.
The search will be on for hidden or coded messages. This will create distractions upon which the media will latch for fear that a coup might actually be under way and they risk missing it.
In order to ease this tension, English will have to undertake a reshuffle of his shadow Cabinet as an absolute minimum —one which sees a major overhaul of personnel and rankings than the feeble rejig English conducted following the election last year.
There will have to be sacrifices of significance to silence dissent on National's back benches. Such revamps end up creating enemies, not friends. There are few means as effective in fermenting the mounting of a leadership coup.
The most compelling reason why English should quit the leadership is far more mundane, however.
Quite simply, he has nothing left to prove in politics. He has done it all.
For him to stick around in the wasteland of Opposition for the next three years in the hope of getting another crack at being prime minister would be an immense and regrettable waste of his talents, skills and brain power.
Things can change, of course. And rapidly. The economy could nosedive. The Greens and New Zealand First could end up on a collision course over some matter of principle which results in one or other party withdrawing from the governing arrangement and thereby collapsing it.
If such a shambles did eventuate, the argument for his going evaporates. He would stay on, selling himself as a rock of stability and primed to fight the 2020 election.
That is in the realm of the fanciful, however. Waiting for the current government administration to split asunder might end up reducing the time available for his successor to make an impact.
Better that English set a date for his departure even if it be someway down the track. He needs to somehow convey his intention to go while giving himself wriggle room to stay on should circumstances drastically change to his and National’s clear advantage.
That would enable him to exit with dignity, while ensuring his colleagues keep focussing outwards rather than inwards.
Ultimately, there is yet another reason for English to leave his job and leave Parliament altogether.
There is no better time than the present for the 56 year-old to make a switch in career whether it be in the private sector or in some role serving the public.
His ideological bent will never be to Labour's liking or comfort. It is possible, however, to envisage his skills, experience and foresight being utilised by governments of varying hues in a similar fashion to the assortment of tasks handed to Sir Michael Cullen in recent times.
The latter is regularly called upon by Cabinet ministers as a problem-solver.
English possesses the credibility, authority, temperament, experience and political nous to do likewise. Arise, Sir Bill.
SHARE ME