John Armstrong: How did Paula end up hogging what was rightfully Amy Adams’ spot in the limelight as deputy leader?

Someone was missing from the podium during Simon Bridges’ first media conference as National’s new leader. That person was Amy Adams.

It is conceivable the front-bencher and South Island MP was in the room. If so, she was well out of camera shot, however.

That said it all. The inescapable impression in the wake of one of the most pivotal caucus meetings in the recent history of the National Party was of a job half-done.

Had Adams emerged as the party’s new deputy leader, it would have lit the words “new broom” in neon.

It would have served warning on Labour and its allies that National was back in business big-time.

Bridges has cleverly sought to reposition National as the "underdog" ahead of the next general election — a declaration that is intended to jolt the party out of any complacency which is the product of the party having won the most seats in Parliament in the previous battle of the ballots.

When it comes to looking like an Opposition party hungering for a return to government, there will be fresh opportunity to have Adams take up a prominent role.

Bridges insists he made no promises about jobs in return for votes. That assertion is very difficult to swallow. The strong support garnered by Adams’ campaign for the leadership means she now effectively has the power to get what she wants.

More than likely the highly-prized shadow finance portfolio is in that category. It would suit Bridges to have this formidable and hugely competent political warhorse as very much a component in his inner sanctum — rather than her operating outside the tent.

Steven Joyce, the current holder of that shadow portfolio, will hardly be doing cart-wheels at the prospect of losing such a plum job.

Given the likely scale of Bridges’ pending rejig of English’s allocation of Opposition responsibilities, he might be pathetically grateful for anything he can get which keeps him in the. shadow Cabinet.

Regardless, Adams’ absence undercut the new leader’s otherwise assured and competent performance in front of the cameras.

Hogging what was rightfully Adams’ spot in the limelight in the capacity of the party’s new deputy leader was the incumbent, Paula Bennett.

That Bennett remains the incumbent following the caucus ballot should earn her the title of the Great Survivor.

Just how events unfolded behind the firmly shut door of the Opposition caucus room, which was itself shrouded from the view of the prowling media by make-shift barriers, is not yet clear.

Some initial accounts claimed that Bennett clung on by winning enough votes on the second ballot on the deputy leadership to gain the required simple majority.

If so, simple mathematics dictates that two other MPs mounted challenges. One of those MPs was Judith Collins. The Crusher’s candidacy may have been enough to scare some MPs back into Bennett’s camp.

Even so, any challenge is hardly an endorsement of Bennett or a vote of confidence.

The puzzle is why Bennett remains deputy-leader. She carries too much baggage from the past to ever be considered a potential candidate for the party’s top job.

As it is, she has finally reached the level of her own incompetence.

What is the point of having someone in that role who can do no more than tread water,

Little wonder then that she emerged from the caucus meeting looking like a moggy very happy to have retained most of the cream.

The further puzzle is why and how Bennett avoided being sacrificed as part of the wheeling and dealing between the candidates for the leadership.

Had Adams been the one perched behind Bridges’ shoulder on the podium — rather than Bennett — it would have given Bridges — to use his own words — much more heft.

He was consequently obliged to adopt more cautious language when answering the questions thrown up by the media throng than he might have wished.

So for every mention of the word “modernise” — a euphemism for “change” — there was accompanying references to “continuity” and “experience”.

No-one would have been expecting any detail on the direction that the new leader intends taking the party.

But the constant balancing act in every other sentence underlined National’s quandary: how does the party “refresh” itself when doing so requires altering, diluting or even discarding the magic formula of governing as perfected by Sir John Key when he was leader and prime minister and which was largely replicated by Bill English during the latter’s stint in those roles which followed.

One obvious answer is personnel. On that front, Bridges was most definitely talking up the direction-setting nature of the reshuffle of portfolios which he has flagged as happening in about a fortnight.

Given the pressure for a clean out of National’s Old Guard, that reshuffle is going to be one mammoth-sized test of the new leader’s management skills.

Bennett’s highly-likely behind-the-scenes machinations and manipulations to keep her job as the party’s No 2 suggests that the Old Guard is not as ready to make way for the “fresh talent” as Bridges wil be hoping.