KEY POINTS:
When the major political parties are not arguing about policy, they are arguing about which of them stole the other's policy. And with good reason. There is a lot of it going on.
Labour has labelled National leader John Key with the "me-too-ism"' policy tag that the Australian Liberals (unsuccessfully) attached to now Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
Labour list MP Moana Mackey yesterday said in Parliament that Mr Key must be getting "dizzy" with all the u-turns he was executing.
She was referring to the shift Mr Key has shown in his attitude to the 3000-unit housing development at Hobsonville. He initially bitterly condemned the concept of state houses being built on prime land for the impact it would have on the value of more expensive homes.
This week, he said he was still opposed to state housing being built there but supported the affordable homes for private sale that were going to be built.
That is not in the same league as the most recent mega-backdown by National - agreeing to continue with Labour's interest-free student loans.
But as the Prime Minister's statement to Parliament this week showed, policy pilfering goes both ways.
Labour's decision to fully fund the organisations that deliver social services on contract to the Government had been announced by Mr Key as National Party policy in May 2007.
National's policy to remove the cap on charitable donations that could qualify for a 33.3 per cent rebate was announced as National policy on February 27 and then adopted in Michael Cullen's 2007 Budget.
The new global awareness given to climate change has seen both main parties make major policy adjustments in the past year, each moving closer to the other on different aspects.
Dr Cullen has executed Labour's biggest "me-too" policy - the commitment to deliver ongoing personal tax cuts.
There is usually a difference between the policy switches, however.
In most of the cases in which National adopts Labour's policy, it actually doesn't really support the policy but has decided not to oppose it, because it is too popular and might cost it too much support in this year's election.
Labour's pilfering, on the other hand, is the active adoption of a policy it wants, and it is the reason why National, and all opposition parties, are reluctant to release too much policy too soon.
National is almost certain to add to the list of neutralised policies in the months ahead, among them the law limiting youth rates to 200 hours of work.
Outgoing education spokeswoman Katherine Rich also indicated this week that National will not go into the election with the highly divisive issue of bulk-funding of schools.
The policy pilfering is not confined to the large parties.
New Zealand First had much of its Treaty of Waitangi policy and law and order adopted by National.
And Labour has over time adopted a lot of the Greens' policy on sustainability.
