The Opportunity Party turns out to be a sham of sorts. 

We have bottom lines, but not real bottom lines. 

1) More power to the Commerce Commission. Big deal... 

2) A 10-year health plan. That means nothing. 

3) Reforming lobbying. That's hardly a thing. It means a lot, or little, or nothing, but it's hard to be against it. 

4) Bottom trawling. It's an odd one because it's not one of life's great issues in a world of war, terror, and white bread prices. 

5) Keeping the Climate Change Commission. Once again, big deal. 

I'd agree to all of that to shut them up and get on with running the country. 

The Government is littered with do-gooder, go nowhere departments. The Climate Commission makes literally no difference to anything. They have no teeth, they just recommend stuff, like a coroner or Privacy Commissioner. 

So what are we left with? 

The land tax is not a bottom line. The universal income is nowhere to be seen. 

In very general terms this would appear to make them much more appealing to a wider selection of voters. 

Is anyone actually against any of their actual bottom lines? 

Can National revisit their potential accommodation with them? They were ruled out because they sounded barking mad, turning everyone into a beneficiary. Now they aren't. 

If National needs six votes, are they the end of the world? Are they for example any more extreme than New Zealand First's opposition to the India FTA or ACT's stand on not breaking up supermarkets? 

If you accept them at their word they are a classic middle-of-the-road type operation. Ironically, they're so middle-of-the-road there appears no real need for them. 

Was their extreme tax position simply an attention grab? Will turning out to be bland on the bottom lines mean their support now fades, given they stand for stuff pretty much everyone stands for? 

How do you disagree with a 10-year health plan, whatever that is? 

They are either suckers, or manipulators, or Machiavellian, but for those who flocked to them to see major reform, it ain't happening. 

Their "get in the tent first" approach is way smarter, but in being now overtly nondescript, have they blown their chances of getting into the tent at all?