KEY POINTS:
It was not the smartest piece of public relations for Labour's Cabinet ministers to be caught on camera extracting themselves from their sleek and swanky new BMWs when New Zealand families feel forced to ration how much cheese their children eat.
However, it probably did not occur to most ministers what sort of impression they were giving as they rolled up en masse to Premier House on Tuesday morning - at least not until they saw the media pack.
It is an old cliche that Cabinet ministers long in the saddle get too accustomed to the soft leather seats of their chauffeur-driven limousines - and Tuesday night's television coverage of Labour's special caucus meeting predictably used the taxpayer-provided BMWs as a visual metaphor for a Government out of touch.
However, while the journey from the Beehive to Premier House - all of 700 metres as the crow flies - was no doubt very comfortable, Labour MPs are under no illusions about the ride the party's in for between now and election day.
That ride has just got a whole lot bumpier. Labour has been struck by the so-called "silent tsunami" - the wave of rocketing food and fuel prices which has come crashing down on governments around the globe.
While the squeals at the supermarket check-out and the petrol pump were loud enough to be heard, they became background static to a Government consumed with other issues. When it did listen, it argued food prices were set internationally and beyond its control. There was also a disconnect between what shoppers were experiencing and the official figures the Government was viewing. While the price of butter has gone up by more than 80 per cent, prices overall rose by just 3.4 per cent in the year to March.
Ministers talked of how Labour had lifted real household incomes, while stressing increased global commodity prices are beneficial to the New Zealand economy.
That was cold comfort to households where budgets are stretched by the combination of rising consumer prices and higher mortgage interest rates.
Neither development is Labour's fault. But Labour knows it will get the blame. If people think they are suffering a decline in their standard of living, it spells electoral death for the incumbent.
Politics does not get any more basic. But Labour failed to see the wave was starting to crest.
John Key had long predicted the weakening economy and the spiralling cost of living would be the major election issue.
When he suggested Labour focus on the economy rather than attacking him, Labour scathingly advised him to get out of the kitchen if he could not handle the heat.
By continuing to hoe into National's leader, Labour looked like it did not care that household budgets were being drained.
In the meantime, the suppressed cries of consumer pain suddenly found an outlet through the media - notably in the Weekend Herald's analysis of where and why shoppers are feeling the crunch.
Neither Key nor any other politician has yet harnessed this consumer fury to great political effect. Labour - now awake to the potential backlash - lives in dread that someone will.
That was why Helen Clark was careful not to rubbish calls for GST to be cut from food.
The idea is a nonsense that bedevils tax regimes elsewhere. Under normal circumstances, Labour would have quietly told those pushing it where to get off.
Labour is acutely aware it would take just one insensitive remark to alienate those hurting from the surge in the cost of living.
This is not the time to be telling people how much better off they are under Labour. They don't feel it.
The political imperative has consequently rapidly shifted from promising tax cuts down the track to offering some kind of financial relief in the short-term.
Tax cuts kicking in next April are no longer sufficient.
The focus is now on whether those cuts will be brought forward to October, whether they are still big enough and whether this month's Budget should contain some additional form of financial assistance.
Such is Labour's worry about surging prices that it is contemplating delaying that part of its emissions trading scheme which would have added up to another 8c to the cost of a litre of petrol from next January.
Labour picks the election to be won or lost in the $40,000 to $70,000 household income band which is feeling the financial pain.
Assuming the support of the Greens and (more optimistically) the Maori Party, Labour estimates it needs to lure back around 90,000 voters.
That is a relatively-small proportion of the vote. Labour believes - probably correctly - that those voters have only a weak attachment to National.
To that end, Helen Clark is said to have told Tuesday's Premier House caucus meeting that it was vital to persist with the the party's election strategy even if the polls continue to fail to move in Labour's favour.
That strategy involves Labour getting back to governing in a competent fashion, demonstrating leadership, stressing how it delivers on its promises, while rolling out bold new policies to demonstrate vision.
The strategy is the correct one because it is the only viable one.
The alternatives are to indulge in a populist lolly-scramble which voters would see through, simply give up, or, lastly, push the panic button.
The strategy's weakness is that it relies on voters acting rationally rather than emotionally. Labour's big problem is that voters angry at soaring food and fuel prices will use Labour as a convenient punchbag. Eradicating such a mindset is going to be difficult no matter what is in the Budget.
