John Armstrong: The Peters principle - nothing is ever simple

As clear as day and as clear as mud. Nothing is ever simple with Winston Peters.

He was under strict instruction yesterday to deliver an easy-to-comprehend speech clearly spelling out NZ First's post-election intentions.

And he did. He confirmed that NZ First did not have enough in common with Labour or National to go into formal coalition. His party would stay on the cross-benches and discuss its position on confidence motions with the major party which won the most seats.

Then Mr Peters held a press conference. He suddenly started talking about abstaining on confidence motions. Where there had been clarity, there was confusion. Where there was stability, there was uncertainty.

It's the old story. Mr Peters grudgingly accepts he had to say something about post-election preferences as silence was threatening his party's parliamentary survival. But he bridles at the loss of independence and flexibility he enjoyed with his earlier refusal to reveal his intentions.

Staying outside Government is a way of preserving those advantages. Abstention on confidence motions would also put more distance between NZ First and the Government.

But this distancing also deprives NZ First of the power that comes from sitting around the Cabinet table.

It begs a question: has New Zealand First begun the long march to irrelevance?

The party will still extract a price for abstaining on confidence motions. But Mr Peters' list of policy priorities contain little either of the two main parties would have trouble swallowing.

It is easy to imagine National's response, for example.

A Golden Age Card for senior citizens? Done. Tighter immigration laws? If you insist. More police? No trouble. Backing for a private member's bill deleting treaty principles from legislation? You bet. Removing GST from petrol? Sorry, no. But we agree with you about cutting business tax.

Mr Peters has not set any difficult bottom lines. Doing so might frighten away voters worried he cannot deal with Labour or National. The party's weak position was best illustrated by Mr Peters saying if voters wanted National's tax cuts, then he would not block them.

NZ First's priority is survival. Yesterday's speech was a tactical retreat to ensure the party is still around to fight another day.

Mr Peters had to silence the "who will you go with" questions and get potential supporters focused back on his key policies.

His pitch to his core elderly and blue-collar vote is that he can implement those policies if they give him the bargaining power.

That message was getting lost.

Now it risks becoming muddled by Mr Peters' throwing abstention into the mix.

The idea is superficially clever. It is a carrot to Labour and National.

It could mean they could avoid the need for coalition or support partners.

That is because abstention would reduce the number of votes the governing party would require to win confidence motions.

It also enables NZ First to bid for votes by saying it has come up with a way of shutting the Greens or Act out of power.

But it is a long shot. And it is also far too complicated to get across in the little time left until election day.