John Armstrong: Cosy-up good insurance

Helen Clark and Jeanette Fitzsimons may have spent only a morning in each other's company, but their joint campaigning yesterday was deft politics as much for the timing as the obvious symbolism.

It made sense for Labour and the Greens to present a united front before electioneering got under way in earnest.

Better to do it now in the relaxed atmosphere of a couple of school visits than postpone it until later in the formal campaign, when something unforeseen might suddenly have the two parties at loggerheads again.

Such a catastrophe looks remote this time, however. The lessons of Corngate have been absorbed by both parties.

Yesterday's exercise in kiss-and-make-up put the final seal on their bitter and lengthy wrangling over genetic modification - this side of the election at least.

But the public display of top-level co-operation was not designed with the rear-view mirror in mind.

Clark wants the question of who can best deliver stable government on the election agenda. Her photo opportunity with Fitzsimons highlighted that Labour has a willing and responsible partner-in-waiting but that National does not.

The glad-handing offered voters a sharp image of the next Clark government to contrast with the absence of any firm alternative from the centre-right. Clark looked in control of her destiny, whereas Don Brash is hostage to New Zealand First.

It reinforced Clark's strategy of framing this election as a "stark choice", in this case certainty under Labour versus the uncertainty of National.

Of course, there is a downside for Labour in being linked with the Greens.

But yesterday's gesture had to be overt. The trick was not to overdo it. In that respect, yesterday's pictures are worth a thousand press releases.

The added benefit to Labour of this entente cordiale is the placing of a "good behaviour" bond on exchanges between the two parties. They can still criticise each other's policies, but it stops them taking gratuitous swipes.

Clark has bought herself some insurance. The Greens now have too much to lose if the reconciliation breaks down.

The Prime Minister is giving them some major assistance at a vital moment - and to her potential cost. While the Greens' support fluctuates wildly between polls, their rolling average in all polls has now slipped below the 5 per cent threshold.

In being pictured alongside Fitzsimons, Clark is in effect saying Labour is relaxed about left-leaning voters forgoing a party vote for Labour to ensure the Greens make it into the next Parliament.

But then she has to be relaxed. If the Greens fall below the threshold, Winston Peters becomes kingmaker, pure and simple.

Linking Labour more closely to the Greens is part of Clark's subtle game-plan to distance her party from New Zealand First and thus make voters believe that party is really on Brash's side of the fence, whatever Peters might say to the contrary.

Raising the spectre of a National-NZ First coalition has the double benefit of strengthening Labour and weakening NZ First by driving voters into Clark's arms.

By marginalising Peters, she can afford to shed some votes to the Greens.

It is a calculated gamble. Nevertheless, proceeding with yesterday's photo opportunity must have been a finely balanced decision.

The joint campaigning was confined to the launch of a couple of uncontroversial transport initiatives - a subject where both parties already have a formal agreement to co-operate and one where they could therefore both feel comfortable.

The safety-first stance reflects the fact that there is no guarantee that holding hands in public will boost the centre-left's share of the vote. Such exhibitions of bonhomie may well reduce it.

Labour's vulnerability in that regard was apparent in the 2002 election when fears about the Greens getting their hands on the levers of power was a dominant feature of the campaign.

But there has yet to be a similar anti-Green crusade in this one. That may be because the titanic struggle between Labour and National has diverted attention away from minor parties.

The Greens have also cooled the temperature.

This time, they are placing a priority on Labour staying in power, rather than belligerently insisting Labour swallow their non-negotiable bottom-lines.

They could still inadvertently cause damage to Labour, however.

For starters, Clark's pitch that a vote for Brash is a vote for "radical policy change" will be thrown back at her if she is seen as cosying up to the Greens when they have enough radical policy of their own.

Where the Greens could do serious injury is through accidentally exposing Labour's achilles heel - its so-called "political correctness".

The huge unhappiness with Labour's penchant for social engineering is bubbling below the surface of this election, especially among the party's traditional blue-collar constituency.

So far, Labour has kept a lid on it.

But the sensitivity was apparent in Labour's initial hesitation in backing Rod Donald's call for New Zealand's cricketers to boycott Zimbabwe.

Equally telling was the reaction to the Greens' push for a 1 per cent levy on soft drinks to promote healthy eating.

Health Minister Annette King spoke like a right-wing politician in scotching the idea as "bossy government" and "nanny state".

It is not difficult to envisage Clark's ultimate campaign nightmare - an anti-Greens tirade from John Tamihere provoked by Sue Bradford's controversial bill to scrap parents' right to use "reasonable force" to punish their children.

The difficulty is that Labour can shout all it likes that there is nothing left on its morals agenda following civil unions, legalised prostitution and smoke-free bars.

Everything about the Greens and their agenda screams "politically correct" in many voters' minds.

In the end, however, Labour's reservations about dealing with the Greens are secondary to securing that most basic of political commodities - power.

The lesson of the past three years is that the more options available to a ruling party when it comes to securing majorities in Parliament, the more leverage that party has in wheeling-and-dealing with those other parties.

The survival of the Greens is paramount for Clark - otherwise she will be stuck in a hopeless bidding war with Brash for the miserly affections of Peters.