It is a curiosity of New Zealand politics in the early part of the 21st century that one of the most devastating salvoes across the partisan divide is to compare opponents to your own recent forefathers.
If a Labour supporter, for example, were to critique a National Party policy by calling it "worthy of Rogernomics", it would not be shorthand for "as brilliant and ground-breaking as the reforms pursued by our charming old uncle Roger Douglas".
Equally, if a National stalwart suggests Labour rivals are behaving "like Muldoon", that is code for something other than "you are as visionary and brilliant as our beloved former leader, the longest-serving National PM of the last 50 years".
And so National MPs queued up in Parliament this week to denounce Andrew Little as Muldoon reincarnate. Bill English was moved to quiver at the "nightmares of the 1980s". Chris Bishop, who was in nappies when Muldoon called a snap election in 1984, cautioned the House, "the 1970s were not a great time in New Zealand, and it took the Labour Party and a Labour Government to sort it out". Steven Joyce meanwhile saw in Little "possibly the angriest leader since ... Rob Muldoon", while Paula Bennett agreed it was "back to the 1970s", and Labour should refit their offices - "remove the photos of Michael Joseph Savage and put up large photos of Robert Muldoon".
This week most National caucus members had got the memo. The party's spin-bosses are masters of political messaging, and the overarching message, as often as not, goes: Labour sucks. To be fair, mind you, they do get served up a plentiful supply of material.