KEY POINTS:
First marks to the Prime Minister, though the timing is against her. The election, she says, is about "trust". Not the Spencer Trust, she hopes, nor other questions about her own knowledge of a donation to Winston Peters. "Trust" is where Labour wants the debate to be and the party that can fight the battle on its favoured ground is halfway to winning.
"Trust" has struck an instant chord. No sooner had the election date been announced than a television show was treating it as prevailing wisdom. "It's all about trust, isn't it?" said the host to his political commentator. That's paydirt for spin merchants.
If National does not want to fight the battle on Labour's ground it needs to quickly come up with an idea as powerful. What would John Key say the election is about in a word? The fact that we have to ask means he is behind the play already. Here is what he is saying on his website: "This election is about New Zealanders having the opportunity to choose a government that is focused on what matters to them. It is about being able to turn a fresh page ... "
No good; too many words, none of which "cut through", as marketing people say. Unless National can find a slogan that shifts the ground, this election really will be about trust as Labour defines it.
The Government will make much of the fact that it came to power with few promises and it kept them. It also took decisions that were not mandated, as any government must, but it has been anxious to avoid selling state assets or springing unpopular surprises.
Its single most contentious step has been the removal of the anti-smacking legislation, which was in Labour's 1999 manifesto but not enacted until a Green MP put the issue on Parliament's agenda in the Government's third term. The legalising of prostitution and the introduction of civil unions with all the rights of marriage have also caused the Clark Government to be distrusted by some.
But the real weakness of the "trust" issue for Labour is that it is backward looking. It is intended to contrast the Government's record with that of National in the 1990s, and Labour will do its utmost to suggest National intends to pick up the reform programme again. The accusation had force when Don Brash was leading the party, less so now.
Mr Key appears genuinely uninterested in the debates of a decade ago, and most of the electorate may be with him on that. The more Helen Clark and Michael Cullen go on about what was done 10 or 20 years ago the younger and fresher Mr Key will seem. Labour is hoping that behind him National has enough old faces to remind the voters of what was done. But the electorate is looking at the new face.
It probably wants no more than a few new faces. This is not a "change" election. The public mood is not one of deep-seated discontent with the country's direction or stagnation. National's leaders have been steadfastly avoiding policies that spell substantial change, preferring to endorse just about everything Labour has done.
If "change" cannot be Mr Key's answer to "trust", what in a word can he offer? "New"? "Fresh"? Those are for supermarkets. If he cannot come up with something better he will have to engage Helen Clark on her chosen territory. He could try to turn the issue of "trust" against her, making much of the Winston Peters saga. But there ought to be more important issues for the campaign.
Elections are always about trust and much more. If the Peters fiasco neutralises the issue of trust, both major parties will have to offer more - a sense of the future perhaps.
