A couple of new policies to dissect. The government's wage subsidy extension and change. And National's tourism funding.

First to National, they're onto something. It's practical stuff that encourages growth.

Their first policy under Simon Bridges allowed you to write off large spends, encouraging you to buy plant and machinery. It was costed, made sense, and was well-received, unlike the government's bank debt plan that went nowhere fast.

Then they came up with Muller's first policy. An incentive to hire, $10,000 per person hired. It's an encouragement, an incentive, leads to expansion and growth, and now tourism grants that are attached to growth, new ideas, and it’s a contestable fund decided upon by tourism experts not wonks in Wellington.

These are the solid, sensible, entrepreneurial ideas that will get National back in the election race. Because what it does is separate them out from the government, who are relying on debt and welfare to make you feel as though we will get through this economic mess in one piece.

That brings us to Friday's change to the wage subsidy scheme. The second tranche was going to require you to prove a 50 percent Covid-19 hit, now it's 40 percent. That brings in 40,000 businesses. This will be of relief, I personally know of several businesses it will directly affect. Those on the scheme already, and grateful for it. It did what it was supposed to do - keep jobs.

But 50 percent was going to be a stretch. Yes, they'd been hit but not that bad, so 40 percent they’ll probably scrape in.

But for how long are we paying wages with printed and borrowed money? And when there is a third tranche, and there will be, what level is it set at? Where is the line drawn? Especially given the economy will be well and truly open by then, where is the line between welfare and subsidy?

How long as a business do you get to rebuild under government help before someone goes, sadly, "you know what? You're not going to make it."  

And when that happens how much have we spent trying to save jobs that weren't saved? And those who had the jobs still get the wage subsidy, it's just called the Jobseeker Benefit.

That is the critical role of government going forward. Less welfare, more incentive to grow and go. Welfare is addictive, and if you want to be Machiavellian, that probably suits Labour perfectly. Their control over us is their utopia, hence the third tranche will take us to election day. But a day of reckoning is always coming, and when it does, it's ugly.

So National's "in” is to remind us we are actually an agile, hard-working, entrepreneurial country with people who like to forge their own path, not rely on welfare masquerading as subsidies.

Writing cheques using borrowed money is easy. And it's been useful and welcome, but it can't last. National recognise that, and now have policy to show it.

The government, though, not so keen to wean us off.