Christopher Luxon may be the sharpest tool in the shed after all

National party leader Christopher Luxon has copped a lot of flak since late July, when he made an off-script comment ruling out working with the Opportunity Party after the election. The criticism has grown as the polls show the coalition falling short of a majority, with Opportunity possibly holding the balance of power. In the past few days there has even been speculation that National’s caucus could roll Luxon straight after the election if he refuses to negotiate with Opportunity.

But what if the commentators are wrong? What if the man everyone is calling a tool is in fact the best maintained pair of hedge clippers in the shed?

By ruling out Opportunity again and again, Luxon has encouraged soft Labour voters to believe they can have it both ways: change the government and still bring Opportunity into Parliament as a breath of fresh air. Soft Labour voters lean towards Labour but aren’t wedded to it. Many have voted Labour before but are unhappy with its performance or its leader. There are a lot of them. In a recent Anacta poll, half of Opportunity’s supporters wanted a Labour-led government, while only one in ten wanted a National-led one.

They have done the back-of-the-envelope calculations. Labour plus the Greens plus Te Pāti Māori with an overhang plus Opportunity equals a Left majority. They are counting on Luxon keeping his word after 7 November, meaning the only party Qiulae Wong can talk to is Labour.

Why Luxon’s plan just might work

There are two broad outcomes for Opportunity on election night, and neither work to the Left’s benefit, however.

In the first, Opportunity falls just short of the 5% threshold. Its average across the six October polls to date is 6.26%, with some in the fives and one in the fours, which is closer to the line than Opportunity will be comfortable with. For a party polling around 5%, a poll of 1,000 people has a margin of error of about 1.4 points either way. The pollsters also disagree with each other, and there are still many late deciding voters. A fall of a point or so on election night could be enough to keep Opportunity out.

If it misses the threshold, every vote cast for Opportunity is set aside. Those soft Labour votes vanish from the Left’s total. Seats are then shared among the parties that made it in proportion to their share of the votes that still count. Every remaining party’s share goes up, but the bloc with the most votes gains the most seats.

It’s the National-led coalition that benefits most because it is collectively polling higher than the Opposition (49% National/ACT/NZ First) to 44.6% (Labour, Greens, Te Pāti Māori). Take Opportunity’s 6% out of the count and the coalition’s current 49% becomes more than 51% of the votes that count. With a majority, Luxon never has to be tested on his promise to not work with Opportunity.

The more soft Labour voters choose Opportunity, the stronger this effect becomes. Every vote that leaves Labour for a party that misses the threshold is a vote the Left loses and the coalition never had to win. This is Luxon’s first smart move.

The second is that he has helped arrange who gets the first phone call.

Should Opportunity cross the threshold, Qiulae Wong has said many times that she will talk first to whichever party wins the most votes on election night. Every soft Labour voter who shifts to Opportunity reduces Labour’s party vote total and makes it more likely the party she talks to first is National.

But, but, but…

Hasn’t Luxon ruled out working with Opportunity, with his office saying that includes confidence and supply?

MMP history offers other ways to govern with a party without working with that party.

In 2009 John Key signed a memorandum of understanding with the Greens, enabling them to stay in opposition. The agreement covered a handful of policy areas, principally home insulation. There was no confidence and supply, and no Green ministers. Neither side pretended the Greens were part of the government. They cooperated where they agreed and competed everywhere else.

A policy agreement alone won’t keep a minority government in power, however. Luxon would still need Opportunity not to vote him down and Helen Clark’s 2005 deal with the Greens shows how that can be done. Shut out of government by NZ First and United Future, the Greens agreed to abstain on confidence and supply. Labour got stability without having to include them in the government.

Combine the two and there is a path for Luxon. Opportunity signs a policy agreement and abstains on confidence votes. National, ACT and NZ First govern as a minority government. They survive as long as Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori have fewer seats than they do.

It’s largely smoke and mirrors, but Luxon could then say he never formed a government with Opportunity, and strictly speaking he would be right.

The arrangement could suit Opportunity too, enabling it to develop and deliver new policy without being seen to put National back in power. In the long term, delivering its supporters a National-led government on its first outing in parliament could cost the party its future, so Wong may not deal as readily as Luxon’s critics assume.

The tack on the floor

This cunning plan only works so long as Luxon keeps convincing soft Labour voters he is being reckless. The more convinced they are he is committing electoral and professional suicide, the more reckless they are likely to be with their own vote.

But suppose Opportunity’s soft Labour supporters spot the tack on the floor they were about to stand on in the Voting Place before they cast their vote. They realise they are handing the coalition a free pass to a second term, and they switch to Labour. The picture changes in an instant.

Labour would likely move back ahead of National in the party vote. Opportunity would fall well short of the threshold, and its remaining votes would be set aside. With the Greens and any overhang seats Te Pāti Māori wins, the Left would then have a real chance of a majority government without needing Opportunity at all.

The bottom line

So is Luxon the sharpest tool in the shed on this one? Perhaps not by design. But the effect has been to draw soft Labour voters towards a party whose votes may disappear, or may end up in talks with National first. If it works, the same commentators now calling him wrong will call him a master landscaper.

Six weeks ago, I wrote a simple guide to voting sincerely in this election. I said:

• If you want a National-led government where the tail doesn’t wag the dog as much as it has in the last three years, party vote National.

• If you want a change of government, party vote Labour.

• If you want a strong green, libertarian or nationalist voice in Parliament, regardless of who forms the next government, party vote Green, ACT or NZ First.

• If you want a strong, independent Māori voice in the House, vote for an independent Māori candidate or electorate vote Te Pāti Māori.

• If you don’t care who governs but want a new voice to shake up the debate over the next three years, party vote Opportunity.

On the eve of Advance Voting commencing, my advice hasn’t changed.