Forming a government in a hung parliament: advice from someone who has done it

So, here we are, the first UK general election in 36 years to produce a hung parliament and, in its turn, cross-party talks about a new government.

People in countries with PR voting systems seem quite bemused about how the Brits have reacted to this situation. My home country, New Zealand, has used MMP at each general election since 1996. As a result, there have been various types of governing arrangement.

• Following the 1996 election, the National Party (centre-right), formed a coalition government with New Zealand First (conservative-nationalist), which was often supported by ACT (market liberal).

• Following the 1999 election, Labour (centre-left/social liberal) formed a minority coalition government with the Alliance (left-wing) and had support on matters of confidence and supply from the Greens.

• Following the 2002 election, Labour formed a minority coalition government with the Progressive Party (centre-left) and had support on matters of confidence and supply from the Greens and United Future (a centrist party).

• Following the 2005 election, Labour formed a minority coalition government with the Progressive Party, and had support on matters of confidence and supply from New Zealand First and United Future. The Greens signed an agreement to abstain on votes of confidence and supply, giving the Labour-led Government a majority. The Māori Party also abstained on confidence and supply votes but had no formal agreement with the Government.

• Following the 2008 general election, National formed a minority government and entered into confidence and supply agreements with the Māori Party, ACT and United Future.

(Under most of the confidence and supply agreements, members of the support parties became ministers.)

A common element in many of these arrangements has been United Future. That party’s leader, Peter Dunne, has been a good friend of mine for some 25 years. In a facebook comment earlier today, he set out his views on how the Liberal Democrats might approach the current situation, based on his experiences in 2002, 2005 and 2008.

I think the important thing is that the Lib Dems do not become seen as part of the problem. I agree the options are all very difficult, but the party has to be seen as able to work its way through the difficulties in a calm and measured way to get the right outcome - for the country, as well as for itself.

I do not think there is any need to move at a pace set by any other party. Without dragging the chain, your guys need to remember the strong position they are in. It is highly unlikely there could a governing arrangement that did not involve them, so they do not need to dance to anyone else's tune but their own.

Having done this sort of thing on three occasions here now, I suggest the first thing the party needs to resolve is its priorities policy-wise, and the best way of achieving them.

At the next election the key will be justifying the decision to your own voters, and the best way to do that is to have some policy wins to point to. Stable government is important, but funnily enough, people do not appreciate that when you provide it. They only notice when they do not have stable government, and then the smaller parties are to blame, even if the problem lies within the big party.

So I say concentrate on the policies that are important to your supporters and make sure you are able to achieve them - and then get the credit for them.

And make sure, it is all written down, including the procedural and agree to disagree provisions so there can be no misunderstanding at a later date.

United Future's confidence and supply agreement with National would be worth looking at, as it is the template for these types of agreements here.

Here are links to National’s agreements with the Māori Party and ACT.

Posted via web from Neil Stockley

If you're into the politics of hung parliaments and STV . . .

. . . then you might want to follow the aftermath of Saturday's election in the Australian state of Tasmania.

Final results won't be known until 1 April, but it seems that Labor -- the incumbent government -- will win 10 seats in the Tasmanian House of Assembly, the same number as the (centre-right) Liberals. The Greens appear to have taken five seats, giving them the "balance of power".

Labor previously had an overall majority but a 12 percent crash in their share of the vote has put an end to that. So far, the Liberals have won more votes than Labor. You can see the preliminary results here.

Labor leader David Bartlett refuses to concede defeat. He also says he won't do a deal with the Greens.

Liberal leader Will Hodgman says that if the two main parties end up deadlocked, he would expect to be given the opportunity to be premier. Soon after the numbers went up, Mr Hodgman indicated that he might have some Green MPs in his ministry. Now, Hodgman says that he wouldn't.

Hodgman is trying to get Bartlett to give an assurance that he won't try to govern with fewer seats and fewer votes than the Liberals.

For their part, Greens have promised not to block the budget, meaning that both Labor and the Liberals can, in theory, form a minority government and, presumably, negotiate each bill with the other parties. Their leader, Nick McKim says that he won't try to secure ministerial jobs for Green MPs. He has said that all three parties are now in the balance of power and that the people's mandare us for them all "to work constructively and cooperatively to deliver outcomes for Tasmania."

Meanwhile, a constitutional law expert has urged the state's governor to stay out of the melee and leave it up to the parliament to test out any deals the politicians make.

You can pick up the ABC's coverage here.

Posted via web from Neil Stockley