KEY POINTS:
For a fleeting moment, peace broke out at Parliament this week.
Not only did National unveil a foreign policy stance that was largely Labour's, but the John Key-led party also called an end to decades of fighting and agreed on the broad shape of the defence force.
The shift had been coming for some time as aspects like the unqualified endorsement of New Zealand's nuclear-free legislation were pushed ahead by Key, after not being fully embraced by the previous leadership.
But as National knows, peace in politics doesn't last long - and indeed it was only a matter of hours before the party was accused of taking a "Labour-lite" approach, of lacking imagination, and of failing to mention Iraq in its discussion document.
Given that a consensus on foreign policy is in the best interests of the country, it was a tougher response than National might have expected.
When the response is put together with events of the past two weeks, it throws some light on the difficulties National faces as a party as it looks ahead to next year's election.
When National adopts a Labour policy - as it has signalled in areas like interest-free student loans - it is derided as "Labour-lite" and lacking fresh ideas.
When it puts its head above the parapet and talks about something different - like partially selling state-owned enterprises or more private sector involvement in education and health - National is attacked as having a privatisation agenda and looking after the interests of its mates in big business.
There is a balance between the two that the party must strike in coming months if it is to be electable.
It must do that by picking its fights more wisely, and making its case more tightly than it has over the past fortnight.
In the area of foreign affairs and defence, National argues there wasn't really a fight to have.
Rather than accepting that it looks to have rolled over in this area, National argues its consensus approach was made easier by Helen Clark's Labour Government moving in from the left of the political spectrum toward the centre following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Clark deployed SAS troops to Afghanistan, something National reckons she would never have envisioned herself doing a few years before.
A change in tone from Australia was also identified when it came to New Zealand's defence force contribution, which helped propel National away from its previous claims that we weren't pulling our weight on the international stage.
If anything, foreign affairs and defence have probably been a negative for National at recent elections and so it shouldn't be forgotten that it is also in the party's own political interests to safely park these issues.
Inside the National Party there remain some people who believe the bipartisan approach being taken is too soft and that an air combat wing should be restored to the defence force.
But there has been a generational shift which leaves those people in a minority, and Key is in no doubt that the move is the right one.
Leaving behind foreign affairs and defence, National will have to be careful which battles it picks to differentiate itself from Labour before the election.
Key refers to some core principles of the party that won't change - tax cuts, smaller government, a tougher stance on law and order, mutual obligation on welfare, and a fundamentally greater trust of the private sector to play a role.
He acknowledges that if National looks too much like Labour there is little point in voting for his party, and he knows he won't get to the ninth floor of the Beehive with tax cuts alone.
But Key also must know that any talk about selling - even partially - state-owned enterprises is going to lose National more friends than it will win.
It would have been a lot easier for National to have had a debate about partnering with the private sector in health and education if deputy leader Bill English hadn't, just days before, tested the waters for partial SOE sales.
Public private partnerships is one battle National does look likely to fight, particularly in the area of building infrastructure.
Even senior figures in Labour acknowledge such a policy could potentially be sold to voters.
In education and health, there is a feeling that if National's political management improves it could convince people not to be scared of greater private sector involvement.
Parents may not be too worried who built the school that little Johnny goes to, as long as there is one handy to home and its standard of education is good.
Patients, too, may not worry who removed their gall bladder as long as the pear-shaped item is gone.
It is the way National sells these policies that will be crucial and it will have to improve on this count.
English may well have been simply restating an SOE policy that National took into the 2005 election, but the fact is the party didn't win that ballot.
Key appears to have been backing away from that SOE policy ever since English restated it, and it is now looking increasingly like one battle National will not be fighting.
Better management from National around the release of its private sector-related ideas could have seen Labour forced to argue with its opponent on the merits of the policy - instead of being able to reach for the "privatisation agenda" label so quickly and convincingly.
There is differentiation between National and Labour, but it's not in the voters' minds the way that National wants it to be.
More context around the policy ideas was needed. A good set of reasons for them was needed. Solid follow-up actions were needed.
And so Labour will swing the baseball bat that National has handed it when the House resumes on Tuesday.
Key knows it's coming and he also probably knows a drop in the polls is most likely coming.
Labour will be careful, though, not to swing the bat too hard. It has done well from moving its visible focus away from attacking National and toward governing again.
It is a more formidable opponent for Key to overcome when it governs.
