With its conference in Dunedin at the weekend, the National Party has won back some friends who had perhaps begun to feel the central hierarchy had come adrift from the membership. Last year in Christchurch not only were elements of the media excluded from key sessions, but the opportunities for delegates to interact with ministers who they had helped get elected were minimal.
The party was in danger of losing loyal supporters who, as this newspaper's political editor put it, were "tired of being talked at rather than talked to". The party appears to have taken such criticisms on board. During the Saturday session of the conference, at Forsyth Barr Stadium, most sessions were open. And this year, eight delegates had the opportunity to "pitch a policy".
Delegates were also encouraged to submit written questions to four mainland MPs, thus adding to the sense of participation. Neither did it go unnoticed that most speakers to the conference acknowledged the work of the party's rank and file. Some of this may have been damage control, but managing the expectations of party members is a real and necessary task.
Sometimes it can also be a distraction. When the Cabinet, for example, is beset by challenges and crises which need careful, discreet and urgent handling, the complaints and perceived slights of party delegates must seem like small beer.
While National has evidently made much progress in addressing such perceptions, it would be wrong to suggest it is without external challenges. Calling them crises may be elevating them beyond their status, but there are at present several matters on its "political management" agenda.
The SkyCity convention-deal-for-pokies is one that refuses to go away and - while not yet reflected in any noticeable dent in popularity polls - has about it at least a faint odour of political mustiness that, left unattended, could yet see the rot set in. The Crafar farms sale to Chinese interests, the partial sale of state electricity generating assets, the release of information around the Warner Brothers Hobbit deals and, locally, further questions about the Hillside tender process all have at least the potential to distract from the business of government and to colour perceptions of its performance. So the management of them becomes pertinent.
The latest of these is the John Banks Dotcom donation affair.
This pertains to the donations received and acknowledged by Mr Banks for his 2010 campaign for the Auckland super city mayoralty. The allegation is that he knew where some of these were coming from and did not reveal this on his declaration. He insists it was legal and above board, but has so far refused to answer a direct question as to whether he knew Dotcom was a donor.
Strictly speaking, this is not National Party business, but it is Government business in as much as Mr Banks is a minister of the Crown and, should he be found to have transgressed the rules and be criminally liable, he would have to leave Parliament. That would assuredly have ramifications for Prime Minister John Key and the party.
Thus far, Mr Key says he has questioned Mr Banks about the matter and accepts his word on it, much as he did, initially, with Nick Smith over the ACC imbroglio before changing his mind.
In such matters, as in others, the Prime Minister seems guided as much by an uncanny ability to fathom the "view on the street".
To date, this has served him well.
But should Mr Banks prove to be culpable and have to resign, Mr Key will have to his name another instance in which he opted for pragmatism, rather than enforcing a more cautionary, principles-based approach.
Being able to judge when the many voices beating in the undergrowth have genuine import and when they are simply making political mischief is one of the great skills of enduring politicians. It is too early to say how this one will end up - due process must take its course - but prime ministers do not want to be on the wrong side of such decisions too often.
