John Armstrong: Winston's balancing act

Few politicians carry the baggage of their past to quite the extent Winston Peters does.

So it was not surprising the succession of polls suggesting NZ First could hold the balance of power has prompted a lemming-like rush to judgment that this coming election will be a rerun of 1996, with Peters calling the shots and coalition talks dragging on for weeks.

That assumption is wrong. For one thing, NZ First has not sat in Opposition for seven years to repeat the mistakes of its one and only experiment with coalition government.

But it is an assumption Peters' opponents - notably the Prime Minister this week - would love voters to make.

Right now, Peters could probably do without the title of kingmaker, which is something of a double-edged sword.

It is an obvious plus for a minor party to plant itself in a position where it cannot be ignored in the election campaign.

But NZ First is acutely conscious the kingmaker talk is also a big turn-off for voters and a distraction from the party's core messages.

That is why Peters, however forlorn it might sound, keeps trying to pitch the election as a three-horse race.

That is why he tries to shut down questions about his party's intentions as "mindless speculation".

The questions will keep coming. Could Labour and NZ First work together in coalition? Will Peters' innate conservatism see him opt again for National? Will he keep his party outside Government, wielding power from Parliament's cross-benches by vetoing legislation he does not like?

Those questions will be asked throughout the campaign on the off-chance Peters might actually answer them in a meaningful fashion. No one expects that to happen, though.

In part, NZ First's success at the ballot box hinges on Peters' intentions remaining a mystery. His attraction lies in claiming he will keep both Labour and National honest.

Even the slightest hint of which of those two parties will get the nod of approval would see Peters ditched by those voters preferring the alternative.

However, Peters is going to be under huge pressure to give some inkling of his thinking.

His mantra is that NZ First withholds its position until the voters have spoken.

But this mantra has not been tested since the 1996 election, when many supporters felt he sold them a pup by going with National.

In 1999, NZ First was in survival mode and out of coalition reckoning. In 2002, Labour, the only party able to form a government, had plenty of options and spurned Peters.

This year, voters may well want firmer indications from Peters if Labour and National are running neck-and-neck.

He faces the tricky task of saying nothing to disturb his newly won, but loosely attached supporters, while saying enough to keep them on board.

United Future's solution to this dilemma is to declare it will open talks first with the party that wins the most seats.

This may well be the stance NZ First adopts, if only by default. It knows it will probably be morally obliged to do so because the party holding the most seats is the measure of how the voters have spoken.

It is also highly unlikely the country will tolerate a repeat of 1996's tandem talks with both Labour and National - unless the result is extremely close.

The danger for Peters in leaving everything so vague is that someone else will declare his preference on his behalf.

Having bled support to NZ First over the last three months, the Prime Minister this week claimed Peters went with National in 1996, despite indicating he would go with Labour.

People might have got that impression. But Peters was never that explicit - and deliberately so.

Helen Clark is playing a calculated game. She may be softening her language to avoid a slanging match with Peters because verbal brawls cost Labour plenty in the 2002 campaign. The message is still firm: no matter what, Peters will always go with National. In short, he cannot be trusted.

She is putting the frighteners on the elderly who are wandering away from Labour that by doing so they might end up with Don Brash.

But she is also playing on fears of instability, urging the wider electorate to ask itself whether Peters can be trusted not to pull down the next government of which he is a part.

Such a government will be battling expectations that it will not last. That is why Clark and Brash are reluctant to display any enthusiasm about working with Peters.

In Brash's case, the absence of viable alternatives on the centre-right means he is unlikely to have any choice in the matter.

With the Greens and the Maori Party on her side of the divide, Clark may yet escape Peters' clutches.

Even so, she cannot rule out dealing with NZ First because the numbers may so dictate.

In striking a deal, personality will be the obstacle, not policy.

There is a high degree of compatibility on fundamentals such as economic management, tax, public health and education, and foreign policy. Peters is demanding that state pension rates be lifted, but NZ First's policy of "incremental" increases allows room for negotiation.

However, NZ First will have no truck with Labour's so-called "political correctness".

Labour cannot stomach Peters' inflammatory rhetoric.

Labour fears being tainted by association with someone who is a lightning-rod for trouble; someone who will not be docile and obliging like Jim Anderton and Peter Dunne.

Instead of coalition, Labour would want to keep Peters at arm's length by running a minority government with his backing on confidence and supply in exchange for a lengthy list of policy concessions.

If Peters will not buy that, there is some suggestion Clark will play hardball, keep running her current minority Government and challenge Peters to back her or sack her each time a confidence vote comes up in Parliament.

While that might be constitutionally acceptable - just - fighting instability with instability is thought likely to backfire on Labour.

Easily forgotten in all this are the unpalatable choices facing NZ First. It could become part of a tiring Labour-led Government struggling to avoid a slump in support in a third term. Or Peters could ignore his loathing of Brash's personal ideology and take a punt on National, even though that party is still short of looking like a competent government-in-waiting.

Staying outside government might also be to NZ First's advantage - and Peters is not ruling it out.

It is not just Labour that fears being poisoned by coalition.