Little wonder National wernt in the running for a coalition deal. They must be happy now.
Why would they be happy that they are not in government? That is the politicians goal, get into a position of power and implement positive policy change.
How could you possibly get this so utterly wrong, again?
I feel sorry for you :(
I'm quite sure Government cycles are no different to business opportunity cycles, or even basic life skills. Sometimes it makes sense to recognize that there is a better opportunity to realize better long term goals, than compromised lesser short term goals. Sometimes you have to suck it up and sit back for a little in order to get a better long term result.
The Labour NZ First coalition is likely to be short term IMO. Peters is the wild card here.
National could possibly have done one more term, possibly. Especially if Key had stayed in place, it may have been possible. But that would have been the end of them for at least two, possibly even three terms. Perhaps their goal is to miss what they believe could be a one term coalition and try and win two terms as a fully independent party? Maybe ignore what could be a troublesome term joined at the hip with Peters (same marriage cost - different partners), or sit back and try to regroup with an eye to the longer term opportunities to implement the positive policy changes you suggest?
Don't feel sorry for National. (I hope) their goals are long term. Now what do they do about Simon Bridges? I certainly called that wrong.