KEY POINTS:
One of the most bizarre sights in Parliament this week was Winston Peters plaintively wailing to the pursuing pack of journalists that he needed, and wanted, them to cover his privileges committee hearing of Serious Fraud Office evidence but the nasty committee would not let the journalists in.
Normally, Winston grumpily ploughs through the waving microphones and cameras, snapping and snarling at the "meerkats".
Indeed, just a few days before, Peters was thundering that the media was at the centre of a vast conspiracy to bring him down and, in international boardrooms throughout the planet, press barons were scheming about how to destroy New Zealand First.
The truth is that in media boardrooms the only thing press barons might say to that accusation is, "Winston who?"
Now it seems, Peters believes only the good old Fourth Estate can save him from the treacherous designs of the SFO and the lynch mob of his political opponents.
His strategy now, in the face of fairly damning evidence from businessman Owen Glenn and the bumbling testimony of his lawyer, Brian Henry, is to try to portray himself as a cruelly abused victim.
It might be working. A poll on Friday showed there was a sympathy vote, lifting New Zealand First's support to the magic 5 per cent level.
However, a weighted average of all recent polls shows the party barely cresting 3 per cent.
His attack on the SFO for sending a document to the privileges committee is curious, especially as he launched a verbal assault on the organisation before he appeared to know the document's contents.
The SFO might have written to the committee saying there was no evidence of impropriety and supported his claims.
Whatever the case, we will learn on Tuesday when the privileges committee reports back to Parliament.
By then, Peters will be well armed with counter arguments against the committee report because, as you read this, he is studying an advance copy of its findings.
Clutching at an extremely thin straw, Peters points to a nasty anonymous letter allegedly sent by an SFO employee to New Zealand First's Ron Mark as evidence of a vendetta by the agency.
His campaign of vilification of the SFO was boosted by Michael Cullen's extraordinary refusal to voice confidence in the head of the Serious Fraud Office, Grant Liddell.
When the deputy prime minister refuses to say whether or not he has confidence in the leader of one of the state's law enforcement agencies, we are rapidly approaching banana republic status.
The whirling maelstrom of the Peters affair has sucked an otherwise competent and astute government into a disastrous shambles.
All along, the strategy of Prime Minister Helen Clark and Cullen has been to keep the New Zealand First leader afloat because Labour may need his support to form a government after the election.
Although after all this mess, I suspect Clark must be wondering, at times, if she would not be better off without him, even if it meant losing.
Gloriously overconfident because of polls showing it hovering between 47 and 52 per cent support, National seems oblivious to the numbers game that will occur immediately following the election.
After a hard campaign - and Clark is a great campaigner - National might get, for example, 47 per cent of the vote and be a few seats short of a majority.
Even with the support of Act and United Future it might not have enough to govern.
Labour with say, 38 per cent, plus New Zealand First, the Greens and Jim Anderton, might sneak home.
The real kingmaker will be the Maori Party and its six or seven seats. It will be fascinating to see how it wields this power and, frankly, it could go either way.
My guess is it will run the risk of shocking supporters and back National in exchange for some policy concessions and a role in cabinet.
From National's perspective, it's vital to keep scoring policy hits if it wants to boost its vote, yet every time it manages to botch the job.
John Key comes out with an interesting proposal to try to stem the doctor shortage by voluntarily bonding junior doctors in exchange for writing off their student debt, and it is instantly overshadowed by his health spokesman blowing a fuse and heavying district health boards not to say anything positive about the sector during the election campaign.
Clark says this election is about trust. It is not. It is about confidence. With Homer Simpson-like aplomb, National appears to have an unfailing ability to shoot itself in the foot.
How long can it keep saying "Doh!" before voters start believing National really is incompetent and lose confidence in it?
