The case for ruling out Winston

Damien Grant writes:

Bridges has two options. He can dance around the prospect of having to sup with Peters, debasing himself and his party for a chance to be humiliated, tethered and degraded for three miserable years.
Bridges will be required to apologise and excuse the behaviour of people he will have no authority over and probably has contempt and loathing for. Sounds great.
Or he can declare that he’d be happy to simply be the member for Tauranga rather than have a possible premiership cheapened by an association with Peters. At a stroke he makes NZ First irrelevant. Nothing more than a right-wing faction of the Labour Party.

I agree with Damien.

I was happy when Winston chose Labour last election as it would have been awful for National to be in coalition with Winston, subject to his every whim.

More importantly it is clear Winston was never serious about going with National. He filed a lawsuit against the then leader and deputy leader the day before the election, and never mentioned it during the negotiations. This is such an act of bad faith, that you could never have a good faith negotiation again.

It is a huge gamble but it also would define Bridges as a leader of courage, honour and integrity. It makes an effective contrast with the incumbent whose power is buttressed by Golriz Ghahraman on her left and Shane Jones on her right.
It would also make him popular. The promise of finally exorcising Peters and his handmaidens from our political process is a powerful campaign promise in itself. 
Bridges will then be free to apply the blowtorch to all members of the coalition with gusto and drive home the point to soft conservative voters than a vote for Winston is a vote for Labour. 

If National rules Winston First out, then indeed a vote for them is a vote for Labour and the Greens to be in Government.