KEY POINTS:
Anyone would think John Key was a veteran of the first-past-the-post era, rather than a tenderfoot in the new age of proportional voting. Here he is promising binding referendums on MMP, to borrow up large and to resign if pensions are cut, as though, if National emerges as
the biggest party this November, it will be the old-style dictatorship of the majority.
Perhaps he and his backroom cheerleaders really believe they're going to sweep into office with more than 50 per cent of the popular vote, but history isn't on their side. The last time a party did that was in the snap 1951 waterfront strike election when National was returned with 54 per cent of the vote. In 1949, National (51.9 per cent) swept aside Labour (47.2 per cent), after it had been in power since 1935.
Since 1954, when Social Credit burst on to the scene with 11 per cent of the vote but no seats, a proportion of New Zealand voters have enjoyed a flirtation with third parties of one colour or other. In 1981, as unhappiness with the old parties grew, the "funny money" party collected 20.7 per cent of the vote (but only two seats). Three years on, many of these protesters spilled over to give Bob Jones' NZ Party 12.3 per cent - but no seats.
It was the unjust return of seats for minority parties under first-past-the-post that led to the popular support for MMP, which was finally introduced in 1996, despite the unhappiness of the big two parties.
Since then, the highest proportion of vote any party has received is 41 per cent which Labour scored in 2002 and 2005. While National supporters have been fizzing about the recent 50 plus per cent opinion poll results, the party bosses won't have forgotten that six months before the 2002 election, Labour was polling 50 per cent, but come election day, it got 41.2 per cent.
All of which is by way of introduction, of sorts, to a scary pamphlet from the Act Party that landed in my letter box on Saturday. In fact there were two copies. Obviously they suspect I might need some persuading.
Act, to the right of National politically, and Winston Peters' New Zealand First, are the two obvious makeweights National is going to need to become Government. Mr Peters has already proven if the prize is right, he'll swing either way - Deputy Prime Minister under National, Foreign Minister under Labour.
But the ideologues of Act are made of sterner stuff. "There's only one way to save New Zealand ... and that's to make sure Act Party gets enough votes to hold the balance of power and demand that Sir Roger Douglas gets back his old job of Minister of Finance," says their yellow "pledge card".
Attacking National's leader John Key for being "prepared to keep nearly all of Labour's bad policies to win over Labour voters" it calls on right-leaning voters to give their Party vote to Act and make leader Rodney Hide and Roger Douglas the kingmakers after the election.
"That way, anyone who wants to be prime minister will have to make Roger Douglas Minister of Finance. You'll be surprised how quickly they'll agree!" As a juicy bribe - their expression - Act is offering the average wage earner "an extra $500 a week" in their pocket. Though over how long and at what cost is not outlined.
Somehow I suspect they are not picturing the wicked witch of the Left, Helen Clark, as part of this post-election scenario, which leaves them with John Key. So what is Mr Key's attitude to getting into bed with the hard right?
The Act brochure highlights the tensions on the right between the super-pragmatists led by Mr Key, who is trying to portray himself as more centrist than Helen Clark, and the true guardians of the rightist flame.
The leaked Bill English tape from last weekend's party conference where he told a delegate that National would sell Kiwibank "eventually, but not now", hardly tells us anything we didn't know.
Cats are born to kill birds. National politicians are hard-wired to want to sell off state assets. John Key has admitted as much with his qualification that none will be sold in his first three years in office.
What voters are entitled to know is how flexible is National's "blueprint for change" in the face of demands from coalition partners. Would Mr Key countenance adopting Sir Roger Douglas and his policies as the price of gaining a majority in Parliament?
In the mid-80s, plain Mr Douglas then, turned out to be the trojan horse of the Lange Government, unleashing an economic revolution that had the country reeling - and his Labour Party in free fall. Twenty years on, Sir Roger's patched up his wooden horse, painted it bright yellow and started cruising the National camp.
If Mr Key is contemplating repeating Lange's mistake and letting him in, now would be a good time to warn the rest of us.
