That's probably the election then. When Finance Minister Grant Robertson announced at the Labour Party conference that the Government would be stimulating the economy with major new infrastructure projects, the finance community and big end of town was delighted.
When Jacinda Ardern announced the first tranche would be $400 million to just about every state school in the country you could hear every ordinary parent in the country celebrate.
Combined, the move pretty much put a fork in Simon Bridges. He was done.
Back in September when the Herald reported on the Mood of the Boardroom, infrastructure was rated as one of the most serious issues. Business leaders, mainly National voters, said New Zealand was experiencing an "infrastructure deficit". Some were even more gloomy and warned that New Zealand was approaching an "infrastructure crisis point".
National Party finance spokesperson Paul Goldsmith was at the unveiling of the Mood of the Boardroom and so he heard it all. It's been two and a half months now, and National could have come out with a big infrastructure policy for next year's election. It could easily have said that National was the party to deliver infrastructure, compare and contrast the Roads of National Significance programme with Kiwibuild. But no such policy has emerged from the brains trust of National. Instead we got some angry rhetoric about gangs.
So Labour went and developed its own policy and now it has the infrastructure high ground.
And Bridges and strategic guru Todd McClay immediately went on the attack, criticising Labour's conference announcements. Which means that National has now turned its back on the business community who make up the "Mood of the Boardroom" – not to mention the nation's parents, commuters and hospital users.
How does National think it's going to win the election next year if its leader is not listening to its base?
The party of business keeps making weird policy decisions. Bridges seems reluctant to support moving Auckland's port to Northland or anywhere else because he doesn't want to give Shane Jones a win. What sort of driver of policy is that? When the economics are strongly in favour of the port shift, when 62 per cent of Aucklanders are supportive of the port shift and when your own electorate of Tauranga would benefit from the increased business at its port, and you still come out against it because you don't want to give a particular MP a win, you should probably rethink your tactics.
Meanwhile, Labour pulled off a move of tactical genius with the one-two punch of the Robertson-Ardern announcements.
By giving nearly every state school money, you reach every part of the country. People from all over New Zealand will now see how Labour has put money into their schools. They will be able to witness actual physical change and benefit to their little slice of Aotearoa. And policies that benefit children are usually inarguable, and yet National has argued.
The timing is brilliant too. The money is available now so schools can pick the infrastructure project they want to kick off and it's likely some of them will be complete in time for some lovely photoshoots with local government MPs, or even the Prime Minister, just before the election.
The difference right now tactically between National and Labour is huge. It's as huge as the difference between Labour and National was when John Key was in power and Labour was experiencing the Dark Days of the Daves. The turnaround in just three years is remarkable.
While National sends out tough-on-crime rhetoric that has been shown not to work time and time again, Labour gets smart on crime by actually trying to address the problems that create crime. Better schools means better education means better opportunities for children.
This will only be the start of multiple announcements, one imagines. There will be hospitals and mass transit systems and obviously port shifts to be announced over the coming weeks.
But if the Government wants to be true to who it says it is, and give the economy an injection that will have an instant return, then it needs to listen to its Welfare Advisory Group and lift the benefit. For now, though, this round was easily a knockout for Labour.