Is National Making a Strategic Mistake by Legitimising Opportunity?

I asked an AI agent to develop a strategy for the right-bloc as we wait for the special vote count to finish.

AI's recommendation seems sensible, at first, but it made me realise just how divided our left-bloc and right-bloc really are. It also reinforced my suspicion that Opportunity is essentially a left-bloc party presenting itself as centrist.

AI's strategy goes somewhat like this:

"If National–ACT–NZ First wants to protect its ability to govern after the special-vote count, it should be in serious exploratory talks with Opportunity, the next-largest party outside the governing bloc.

Opportunity is the only realistic additional parliamentary partner currently available: it has seven preliminary seats, while National–ACT–NZ First has 67 of 131 seats—only one above the reported majority threshold.

Opportunity is not a natural ideological ally."

Okay, so that's effectively the high-level strategic plan. The most likely ally for the current right-bloc, but also not a natural ally.

I would probably agree, they are the most likely ally—if you absolutely had to choose one from your political enemies.

But something else caught my attention.

It seems AI has picked up on RNZ's reporting, I have noticed AI do this quite a bit, and it describes Opportunity as:

"a centrist, economically interventionist and institution-focused party with socially liberal and environmentally ambitious positions."

I wondered why AI had inserted centrist before using adjectives that described a left-of-centre political position.

Context can skew AI's interpretation. So, I gave that single sentence without the description of a political position, or the context of the Opportunity party, to another, out-of-context, AI tool and simply asked where this party would sit on the political spectrum.

Its answer?

"This party would sit on the progressive centre-left to left of the political spectrum, combining social liberalism, economic interventionism, strong institutional governance, and ambitious environmental policies—broadly consistent with social democracy and green progressivism."

That's what I thought.

Economic interventionism, institutional focus, socially liberal and environmentally ambitions sound more like the Greens than a conventional centrist party to me. 

But what really got my attention was another observation AI made about Opportunity's potential appeal to voters

"This makes the party potentially attractive to voters who want stronger social outcomes without a conventional left-wing identity."

Now that's interesting.

In other words, voters who might reject the traditional left-wing political label could nevertheless be attracted to policies that produce left-wing outcomes.

Is that effectively what Ashely Church describes as Opportunity being a political Trojan horse?

Nothing to see here, it's just a horse guys.

Again, I was interested to see what a different AI tool would say about that statement. Could it reasonably be seen to be a Trojan horse statement?

"Yes, it could be interpreted as describing a Trojan horse political strategy, although the wording alone does not establish deliberate deception."

Fair enough.

I would not readily attribute malice either. Perhaps Opportunity really do think they occupy the centre of politics.

But gosh, if that's where they think the centre is, what does that say about the parties they consider to be on their left?

Do they know something we don't?

And that brings me back to the original question

If Opportunity is fundamentally a centre-left party, why would National want to help establish it as a permanent fixture in New Zealand politics?

While AI thinks this is the best strategy, it also makes a great argument for not going near them with a bargepole.

The political game has become considerably more complex, and it has given the right-bloc a lot of strategic options.

Whether they will take the best approach is left to be seen. National obviously had a strategy to fail in the Split the Vote campaign. They would have had a much healthier lead if they had got on board with that!

While Opportunity have made it into parliament with around seven percent of the preliminary vote, but that doesn't necessarily guarantee thier long-term survival.

There are still a lot of unknowns.

Political parties can rise quickly and disappear just as quickly.

Every action from every party is now acting to reinforce Opportunities presence in New Zealand politics for the foreseeable future.

National could have done nothing. It could have left Opportunity to establish its own credibility, demonstrate its parliamentary relevance and prove that its electoral support was sustainable.

Instead, Luxon has opened the door.

Was this too early?

Only time will tell, but every interaction will now legitimise Opportunity going forward. 

AI has suggested this is the best option.

But is it?