Two interesting news stories which have crossed my radar in the last 24 hours:
Two major policy announcements from National, two "meh"s from Peter Dunne. Dunne claims to be supporting long-established United Future policies, and he is. But as both of these policies need Dunne's vote to pass, the result is that they are effectively dead from launch.
Normally governments consult their support partners and ensure there is a majority before announcing policy which requires legislation. But National has had things too easy for too long, and this seems to have led to arrogance. Dunne has basicly admitted that National didn't ask him about these policies (something which seems to be in breach of their confidence and supply agreement). And now they're going to pay the price for it.
(Meanwhile, wouldn't it be nice if Dunne stood up for those long-established United Future policies over the spy bill...?)