KEY POINTS:
Being the governing party in the weeks prior to the formal election campaign has its pluses and minuses. Your announcements still carry authority. But you still have to carry the can if things go wrong even though they may be beyond your control.
That contrast was vividly displayed yesterday. Labour got the headlines it wanted when Phil Goff stole a march on opponents by wading into a colleague's portfolio and raising the possibility of Labour banning gangs.
Michael Cullen was powerless as Asian stock markets plunged on news of the collapse of American investment bank Lehman Brothers, the takeover of Merrill Lynch (John Key's former stamping ground) and big asset sales by a major American insurance group.
That was just what the doctor did not order - further havoc in international financial markets just eight weeks out from election day.
Dr Cullen would have had all his fingers crossed he did not wake up this morning to hear Wall Street had the "Mother of All Mondays" overnight that some were predicting.
After a difficult winter, Labour has been buoyed by key economic indicators such as the dollar, interest rates and oil prices heading in the right direction - downwards - and at the right time for a November 8 election.
In its latest monthly report, the Treasury forecasts the economy will start growing again in the final three months of this year after two quarters in recession. The prediction was based on the combined effect of next month's tax cuts, recovery from this year's drought and a weakening New Zealand dollar.
However, the United States economy is now thought unlikely to escape recession. The flow-on effects on the world economy may only start to bite hard in New Zealand after the election. However, National believes it will be the winner from any market turmoil beforehand because, according to its polling, voters see it as a better manager of the economy than Labour.
National should also make the running on law and order. However, it has been headed off at the pass by Mr Goff.
Why the Corrections Minister has become Labour's spokesman on something within the purview of Justice Minister Annette King is not clear. However, Ms King is on the record questioning the feasibility of banning gangs. Mr Goff is more hardline. He is never happy being outflanked by National on law and order.
He was careful not to commit himself or his party to following South Australia's example and passing laws outlawing gangs.
However, in raising the possibility, he has gone a long way towards neutralising gangs as an election issue.
National and NZ First were yesterday scathing of Labour's seeming very late change of heart. National has a separate gangs policy while NZ First has a private member's bill outlawing gangs ready to go. National's policy would make it illegal to be a member of a criminal gang and make it easier for police to conduct surveillance of gangs and remove gang fortifications.
Simon Power, National's law and order spokesman, has stressed for the past couple of years that his party will be tough on gangs. To voters, however, the policy sounds merely like an extension of what they have long been promised by parties promising to get tough with gangs. Banning gangs may very well not work, driving them underground. But the idea is simple, easy to comprehend and radical. It is what a voting public sick of gangs wants to hear. And voters take notice when they hear it from someone like Mr Goff, who may well be in a position to do it.
