tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/hung-parliament-16653/articlesHung parliament – The Conversation2022-11-27T08:25:16Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1954212022-11-27T08:25:16Z2022-11-27T08:25:16ZMedia go for drama on Victorian election - and miss the story<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/497438/original/file-20221127-14-s38r78.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Joel Carrett/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>For the best part of two weeks, Victorian voters were told by the media that the election on November 26 might result in either a <a href="https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/james-campbell-liberals-preferences-may-result-in-a-weak-labor-government-forced-to-negotiate-with-a-minor-party/news-story/b4733aec0f2323c88a3f951d9efa098f">hung parliament</a> or a <a href="https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/state-election/labor-tipped-to-edge-election-win-but-in-danger-of-minority-government-polling-shows/news-story/0c69e770e6a6b503bfa75a3bbaa7c053">minority Labor government</a>.</p>
<p>In the event, the Labor government was returned with a reduced but clear majority, the size of which is not yet known, while the Coalition has suffered a crushing defeat.</p>
<p>How could the pre-election coverage have been at once so breathless and misleading?</p>
<p>The short answer is because of a combination of groupthink and wishful thinking. Unpacking this requires the disclosure of a few trade secrets.</p>
<p>Two days out from polling day, the Herald Sun published <a href="https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/state-election/labor-on-track-to-lose-up-to-a-dozen-seats-in-victorian-election/news-story/ff9cee2f2e17b47387128e3f1863dfd4">an analysis</a> of some focus-group research by RedBridge Group, carried out over the past two years.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/attacks-on-dan-andrews-are-part-of-news-corporations-long-abuse-of-power-194023">Attacks on Dan Andrews are part of News Corporation's long abuse of power</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It stated the likeliest scenario on November 26 would see Labor with 43 seats and therefore forced to form a minority government, given it requires 45 seats for a majority. The best-case scenario for Labor was 48 seats and a return to government in its own right.</p>
<p>Earlier in the campaign there had been loose talk in the Herald Sun, based on no particular data, that there could be a hung parliament.</p>
<p>Then in the last week, a Resolve Strategic poll for The Age <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/labor-coalition-neck-and-neck-as-gap-narrows-between-andrews-and-guy-20221121-p5bzxv.html">showed</a> the primary vote for Labor and the Coalition tied at 36%. </p>
<p>It seemed the race was tightening and perhaps a hung parliament or a minority government were real possibilities.</p>
<p>For the media, this is exciting stuff. It suggests drama, suspense, uncertainty – all powerful news values.</p>
<p>So at rival newsdesks, one can imagine an element of consternation. A chief of staff (COS) can be imagined ringing a state political reporter:</p>
<p>COS: “See the Herald Sun has a survey suggesting a minority government?”</p>
<p>Reporter: “Yeah, but some of it’s two years old.”</p>
<p>COS: “Yeah but a minority government. That’s big. I think we have to have something.”</p>
<p>Reporter: “All right. Something.”</p>
<p>COS: “I mean, we’ll look like dills if we don’t have something and it happens.”</p>
<p>Hours later at news conference, where decisions are made on what stories go where, everyone around the table has seen the Herald Sun. At The Age they’ve also seen the ABC pick it up and at the ABC they’ve seen The Age pick it up. Each reinforces the other’s assessment of the story’s credibility.</p>
<p>The chief of staff assures conference that state rounds are on to it. Minority government becomes the story. Its origin in qualitative data, some of which is two years old, stoked up by the Herald Sun as part of its relentless campaign against the Andrews government, is forgotten or overlooked.</p>
<p>Evidence to support the minority-government hypothesis is assembled, especially the Resolve Strategic quantitative data showing the primary votes neck-and-neck.</p>
<p>News conference’s resident Cassandra raises a voice. “What about the two-party-preferred?”</p>
<p>Editor: “What about it?”</p>
<p>Cass: “Every poll we’ve seen so far has Labor ahead by up to ten percentage points. And they’re up to date, not weeks, months or years old.”</p>
<p>Editor: “So you’re saying we should just ignore the RedBridge stuff?”</p>
<p>Cass: “No, but you can’t ignore the two-party-preferred either.”</p>
<p>Editor: “All right. Put in a parachute about the two-party-preferred but lead on the minority government. I mean there could even be a hung parliament. We’ll look like dills if we downplay this.”</p>
<p>Yep. And that’s how you look when wishful thinking and groupthink cloud hard-minded analysis of all the available data. Taken together, the data showed the likeliest (but journalistically least interesting) outcome was the return of the government with a reduced majority.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-dan-andrews-pulled-off-one-of-the-most-remarkable-victories-in-modern-politics-194710">How Dan Andrews pulled off one of the most remarkable victories in modern politics</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Not only did the two-party-preferred vote not tighten appreciably, but the primary vote turned out not to be neck-and-neck. This is not hindsight. The discrepancy between the two should have raised a red flag: how could the primary vote be neck-and-neck when the two-party-preferred gap was so large?</p>
<p>In fairness, it was reasonable to suppose this could just be a function of how the minor party and independent preferences would flow, which was unknowable at the time. But this seemed not to enter the discussion about the prospect of a minority government.</p>
<p>And a hard-headed look at the RedBridge focus-group data would have revealed to a dispassionate analyst that once the more far-fetched cases had been eliminated, Labor was likely to end up with somewhere between 47 and 50 seats.</p>
<p>The ABC’s election analyst, Antony Green, is giving Labor 52 seats <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/vic/2022/results?filter=all&sort=az">at this stage</a>, with 68% of the vote counted.</p>
<p>Even more curiously, the hung parliament and minority government possibilities were initially generated by the Herald Sun, which acted throughout as a propaganda arm of the Liberal Party. Why on earth would respectable and usually reliable elements of the media such as The Age and the ABC buy into this nonsense?</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1596618285474512897"}"></div></p>
<p>The answer is that it is an abiding weakness in newsroom decision-making to prefer the most dramatic possibility, however remote, over the most mundane but strongest probability.</p>
<p>It is a further weakness to wish not to be scooped on the most dramatic possibility, even at the expense of misleading your audience, looking foolish in the aftermath and buying into scenarios created by your most politically partisan and least reliable media rival.</p>
<p>The result was a feverish outburst of speculation in the final week of the campaign that fed into questioning of Andrews about <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/no-deal-will-be-done-with-crossbench-if-labor-in-minority-government-daniel-andrews-20221126-p5c1gs.html">whether he would entertain</a> doing deals with crossbenchers if Labor could not muster the 45 seats necessary to form government in its own right.</p>
<p>He batted it away with his customary dismissiveness, and who could blame him?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/195421/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Denis Muller does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In covering the final days of the Victorian election, mainstream media fell victim to wanting the most dramatic outcome – no matter how weak the evidence for it may have been.Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1832362022-05-17T07:56:26Z2022-05-17T07:56:26ZWord from The Hill: Five seats to watch on Saturday night, and getting the hang of a hung parliament<p>As well as her interviews with politicians and experts, Politics with Michelle Grattan includes “Word from The Hill”, where she discusses the news with members of The Conversation politics team.</p>
<p>In this podcast Michelle and politics + society editor Amanda Dunn canvass the Coalition’s “super” housing pitch, five seats to eyeball on Saturday night, and what would happen if the parliamentary numbers were “hung”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/183236/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Michelle Grattan discusses politics with politics + society editor, Amanda DunnMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1817062022-05-15T20:15:35Z2022-05-15T20:15:35ZNo, Mr Morrison. Minority government need not create ‘chaos’ – it might finally drag Australia to a responsible climate policy<p>Labor might be <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/labor-pulls-ahead-in-newspoll-but-scott-morrison-holds-his-ground/news-story/ba1882f2cc410e9b1d3a37d8587cb690">leading</a> in the national polls, but a hung parliament after the May 21 election remains a distinct possibility.</p>
<p>So-called “teal” independents, whose blue conservatism is tinged with green concern for climate change, may well join Greens MP Adam Bandt and current independents on the lower house crossbench. Under that scenario, any minority government would need their support.</p>
<p>With the support of advocacy group <a href="https://www.climate200.com.au/candidates">Climate 200</a>, the teals are campaigning on issues relevant to their electorates and raising funds locally. But <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/a-secret-party-immoral-explaining-who-the-teal-independents-really-are-20220505-p5aio4.html">high</a> on their agendas is a strong, science-based response to the climate crisis.</p>
<p>A weekend report by Nine newspapers <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/majority-of-independent-mps-and-candidates-rule-out-formal-deals-with-morrison-and-albanese-to-form-government-20220513-p5al36.html">suggested</a> most independents seeking a lower house seat would not strike a formal power-sharing deal with either the Coalition or Labor. This would leave a major party in minority government negotiating with the crossbench on every piece of legislation it wants to pass.</p>
<p>Almost all the 12 independents who were polled nominated climate change as a key priority they would seek progress on in any negotiations with a minority government.</p>
<p>Prime Minister Scott Morrison <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2022/may/05/will-a-hung-parliament-lead-to-chaos-what-a-gillard-v-morrison-comparison-reveals">claims</a> the election of more independents to parliament would lead to “chaos”. But, as the experience of the Gillard Labor government shows, minority government can break intractable policy logjams. </p>
<h2>Climate policy U-turn</h2>
<p>The Gillard minority government <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-wars-carbon-taxes-and-toppled-leaders-the-30-year-history-of-australias-climate-response-in-brief-169545">reversed years</a> of climate policy failure by delivering carbon pricing and other reforms. This came at the <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ajph.12021">behest</a> of the Greens and with the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-10/independents-hail-carbon-win-for-regional-australia/2789050">support</a> of independents Andrew Wilkie, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor.</p>
<p>Carbon pricing prompted Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions to <a href="https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Carbon-price-10-years-on-web.pdf">fall</a> for the first time.</p>
<p>But from 2013, under successive Coalition governments, climate policy hit <a href="https://publishing.monash.edu/product/a-decade-of-drift/">reverse</a>. Renewable energy targets <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/05/how-australia-bungled-climate-policy-to-create-a-decade-of-disappointment">diminished</a>. Carbon pricing was abandoned and is now considered a political poisoned chalice. </p>
<p>The past decade of majority government has left Australia <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/australia-a-holdout-on-climate-un-chief/jzufkwmqw">isolated</a> on the world stage for its lacklustre climate efforts.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/polls-show-a-jump-in-the-greens-vote-but-its-real-path-to-power-lies-in-reconciling-with-labor-181705">Polls show a jump in the Greens vote – but its real path to power lies in reconciling with Labor</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="back of woman's head and a group of people in suits at a table" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/462920/original/file-20220513-26-s96mpo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/462920/original/file-20220513-26-s96mpo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/462920/original/file-20220513-26-s96mpo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/462920/original/file-20220513-26-s96mpo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/462920/original/file-20220513-26-s96mpo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/462920/original/file-20220513-26-s96mpo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/462920/original/file-20220513-26-s96mpo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Independents and the Greens helped Julia Gillard form minority government in 2010.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Fairfax pool/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Major parties forced to the negotiating table?</h2>
<p>Heading into the election, <a href="https://theconversation.com/scorched-dystopia-or-liveable-planet-heres-where-the-climate-policies-of-our-political-hopefuls-will-take-us-182513">neither</a> major party’s climate policy is aligned with the emissions reduction ambition of the global Paris Agreement. </p>
<p>The Coalition’s policy is consistent with 3°C to 4°C of global warming by 2050. Importantly, it has failed to ramp up its 2030 emissions target from the paltry figure adopted by the Abbott government – of 26% to 28% on 2005 levels.</p>
<p>Labor has a steeper 2030 emissions reduction target of 43% on 2005 levels. It is based upon reputable modelling but falls somewhat short for being consistent with 2°C, not 1.5°C, of global warming.</p>
<hr>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-687" class="tc-infographic" height="400px" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/687/a89f5238821e47b288052a287fbfaa98d2581d3d/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<hr>
<p>Neither major party would relish re-negotiating its climate policy with teal independents and the Greens. But consensus and policy action, on climate and other big issues, is possible under minority government. </p>
<p>As Tony Windsor this month <a href="https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/federal-election/federal-election-2022-tony-windsor-rob-oakeshott-reject-independent-chaos-fears/news-story/6e5c831a98ea96eed8c80d560598733e">pointed out</a>, the Gillard minority government passed more legislation than any other, aside from John Howard’s in its final term. Former Queensland Premier Peter Beattie <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/how-a-hung-parliament-could-save-the-country-from-toxic-politics-20220426-p5agbe.html">also insists</a> minority government can work.</p>
<p>And former Coalition Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull this month <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/may/06/malcolm-turnbull-says-australians-are-voting-with-their-feet-to-support-teal-independents">hailed</a> the rise of the teal independents, who would sit on the cross bench, calling it “direct, democratic action from voters. People power, you might say.”</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-do-the-major-parties-rate-on-climate-policies-we-asked-5-experts-181790">How do the major parties rate on climate policies? We asked 5 experts</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Group of men laughing" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/462925/original/file-20220513-19-onvo9u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/462925/original/file-20220513-19-onvo9u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/462925/original/file-20220513-19-onvo9u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/462925/original/file-20220513-19-onvo9u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/462925/original/file-20220513-19-onvo9u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/462925/original/file-20220513-19-onvo9u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/462925/original/file-20220513-19-onvo9u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Morrison government’s emissions reduction policy is aligned with 3°C of global warming.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mick Tsikas/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What the teals and Greens are offering</h2>
<p>Climate change is a front-and-centre concern for the Greens and teal candidates, and any minority government would need to negotiate with them to form government and to manage their agendas.</p>
<p>Polls suggest independent teal MP Zali Steggall will be easily re-elected in the previously blue-ribbon Liberal seat of Warringah. She will reintroduce her ambitious climate change <a href="https://www.zalisteggall.com.au/media_release_zali_steggall_mp_presents_climate_policy_solution_for_cop26">bill</a>, likely with the <a href="https://reneweconomy.com.au/zali-steggall-the-independent-mp-hoping-to-lead-a-teal-wave-to-canberra/">support</a> of any other elected teal MPs and most of the crossbench.</p>
<p>This bill is modelled on the United Kingdom’s <a href="https://www.oecd.org/climate-action/ipac/practices/the-united-kingdom-s-pioneering-climate-change-act-c08c3d7a/">Climate Change Act</a>. It provides a means of coordinating climate policy action in line with the legislated targets of net zero emissions by 2050, and at least 60% emissions reduction by 2030. </p>
<p>Steggall’s “<a href="https://www.zalisteggall.com.au/climate">5 Steps to Net Zero</a>” comprise:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>passing the climate change bill</p></li>
<li><p>getting to 80% renewable energy by 2030</p></li>
<li><p>cleaning up transport and getting to 76% new vehicle sales being electric by 2030</p></li>
<li><p>halving industry emissions</p></li>
<li><p>regenerating and future-proofing agriculture by rolling out 8 million hectares of tree planting and soil carbon storage, and investing in low-carbon agriculture practices and technologies.</p></li>
</ul>
<p><a href="https://greens.org.au/platform/climate">The Greens would</a> replace coal and gas with renewables, and ban political donations from the fossil fuel industry. The party would fund households and small business to transition to renewables, implement a coal export levy and eventually phase out thermal coal exports.</p>
<p>The Greens want Australia to reaching net zero emissions by 2035 (compared to the government’s goal of 2050) and to reach 100% renewable energy by 2030. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="rows of solar panels with hills" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/462926/original/file-20220513-21-onvo9u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/462926/original/file-20220513-21-onvo9u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/462926/original/file-20220513-21-onvo9u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/462926/original/file-20220513-21-onvo9u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/462926/original/file-20220513-21-onvo9u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/462926/original/file-20220513-21-onvo9u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/462926/original/file-20220513-21-onvo9u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Zali Steggall’s climate change bill includes a target of 80% renewable energy by 2030.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lukas Coch/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Shifting the needle</h2>
<p>The fate of effective national climate policy in Australia – policy that actually reduces emissions – now rests largely on the mix of members in the next parliament and the actions they support. </p>
<p>A majority Coalition win at the election would consign Australia to another term of climate inaction, <a href="https://theconversation.com/yes-australia-can-beat-its-2030-emissions-target-but-the-morrison-government-barely-lifted-a-finger-169835">leaving</a> the state and territory governments the only ones making progress.</p>
<p>If a minority Coalition government eventuates, the Greens won’t offer it support. If any teal independents <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/may/11/high-profile-independents-will-negotiate-with-either-major-party-hung-parliament-teal-australia-federal-election-2022">did</a>, we can expect them to cross the floor on climate policy to support any workable proposal from Labor that had the numbers to succeed. </p>
<p>Labor, the Greens and Steggall’s plans share common ground. But if Labor forms minority government, it will be pressured to accelerate the phase out fossil fuels and to steepen its 2030 emissions reduction target in line with the science.</p>
<p>One thing is clear: in the event a major party forms minority government after the election, it better be prepared to shift the needle in favour of more effective climate policy.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/labors-2030-climate-target-betters-the-morrison-government-but-australia-must-go-much-further-much-faster-173066">Labor’s 2030 climate target betters the Morrison government, but Australia must go much further, much faster</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/181706/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kate Crowley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>If a minority government needs backing from the ‘teal’ independents and the Greens, it better be prepared to shift the needle on climate policy.Kate Crowley, Adjunct Associate Professor, Public and Environmental Policy, University of TasmaniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1822832022-05-05T19:56:56Z2022-05-05T19:56:56ZExplainer: what happens if the 2022 election results in a hung parliament?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/461157/original/file-20220504-22-lp1ch7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>What happens if no party or coalition of parties wins a majority in the House of Representatives at the federal election? This is known as a “hung parliament”. </p>
<p>While it is unusual at the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/1011/HungParliaments">federal level</a>, it has happened more often at <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/at-a-glance-australias-minority-governments/6y8ms4wfc">state and territory level</a>, so there is lots of experience in dealing with them in Australia.</p>
<h2>The prime minister gets to choose what happens next</h2>
<p>An election does not terminate the existing government. It continues in office as a <a href="http://static.moadoph.gov.au/ophgovau/media/images/apmc/docs/63-Caretaker-role.pdf">caretaker government</a> until a new government is formed, so there is never a gap between governments. An inconclusive election does not mean no-one is in charge.</p>
<p>Contrary to popular belief, it is not up to the governor-general to “call upon” someone to form a new government after an election. This is because there is no vacancy in the office of prime minister until the prime minister resigns. </p>
<p>If the result of the election is unclear, or the results leave neither side with a majority so the balance of power will be held by independents and members of small parties (known as “crossbenchers”), then it is up to the prime minister to decide what to do next. </p>
<p>The prime minister could choose to:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>resign on behalf of the government, which is normally what occurs if it is clear that enough of the crossbenchers are going to support the other side</p></li>
<li><p>stay in office while negotiating with the crossbenchers to see who they will support (and resign if they choose the other side)</p></li>
<li><p>stay in office and face parliament to see whether the lower house votes no-confidence in the government (in which case the prime minister must, according to convention, resign) or whether the house is prepared to let the government stay in office as a minority government.</p></li>
</ul>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/461158/original/file-20220504-17-1h4o65.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/461158/original/file-20220504-17-1h4o65.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461158/original/file-20220504-17-1h4o65.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461158/original/file-20220504-17-1h4o65.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461158/original/file-20220504-17-1h4o65.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461158/original/file-20220504-17-1h4o65.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461158/original/file-20220504-17-1h4o65.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">When the 2010 election resulted in a hung Parliament, Prime Minister Julia Gillard brokered agreements with the Greens and independents to support her minority government.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What is the governor-general’s role?</h2>
<p>The role of the governor-general is limited. If the prime minister resigns on behalf of the government, convention requires the governor-general to appoint as prime minister the person most likely to command the support of a majority of the lower house. </p>
<p>This will usually be the leader of the opposition. In rare circumstances, where there are competing claims about who commands the support of the lower house, the governor-general might have some discretion. However, if the issue was contentious, the governor-general would probably leave it to the House of Representatives to decide by voting on who holds its confidence.</p>
<p>In the extraordinary circumstance where a prime minister refused to resign, even though the lower house had voted no confidence in them or their government, the governor-general would be entitled to dismiss the prime minister and commission a new one to form a government. But this has not happened in Australia and is extremely unlikely ever to occur.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/could-the-2022-election-result-in-a-hung-parliament-history-shows-australians-have-nothing-to-fear-from-it-181484">Could the 2022 election result in a hung parliament? History shows Australians have nothing to fear from it</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Is it necessary to get a ‘confidence and supply’ agreement with the crossbenchers?</h2>
<p>When there is a hung parliament, the focus is on whether enough of the crossbenchers will support one side or the other in government, by protecting it from a no-confidence vote and by passing its budget (known as “supply”). </p>
<p>Minority governments can be defeated on legislation and other motions in the lower house and continue in office, as long as they can get supply passed and do not lose the confidence of a majority of the lower house.</p>
<p>So where there is a hung parliament, both sides will ordinarily try to negotiate a “confidence and supply” agreement with enough crossbenchers to guarantee majority support on those two crucial matters. It is not necessary to have such an agreement, but it does help in providing stable government. It is also a good indicator to the governor-general of who commands the necessary support of the lower house. </p>
<p>That is why, despite comments that they won’t do “<a href="https://www.news.com.au/national/federal-election/no-deal-albanese-will-not-strike-a-deal-with-independents-to-win/news-story/6ec7345f03445ed0205698fc224ca5cb">any deals</a>”, it is likely that in the face of a hung parliament, both the prime minister and the opposition leader would try to negotiate confidence and supply agreements with enough crossbenchers to get majority support in the lower house.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/461159/original/file-20220504-15-qyx4j4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/461159/original/file-20220504-15-qyx4j4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461159/original/file-20220504-15-qyx4j4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461159/original/file-20220504-15-qyx4j4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461159/original/file-20220504-15-qyx4j4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461159/original/file-20220504-15-qyx4j4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461159/original/file-20220504-15-qyx4j4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In the event of a hung parliament, crossbenchers become extremely important.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In return for a promise of support on confidence and supply, the crossbenchers will usually impose some <a href="https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/researchpapers/Pages/minority-governments-in-australia-1989-2009-acco.aspx">conditions</a>. They may require the government to promise to implement certain policies (for example, measures to deal with climate change) or establish greater accountability (such as an anti-corruption body). </p>
<p>They may seek reforms on how parliament operates and demand adequate funding for existing accountability bodies, such as the auditor-general. They may also make their agreement on confidence conditional on the government not engaging in any corrupt conduct.</p>
<p>There are no rules about how these negotiations take place or how long it takes before an agreement is reached. Prime Minister Julia Gillard took over two weeks to negotiate confidence and supply <a href="https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/researchpapers/documents/minority-governments-in-australia-texts-of-accor/Gillard2010MinorityGovt.pdf">agreements</a> with enough crossbenchers to form a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/07/labor-julia-gillard-form-minority-government-australia">minority government</a>. But if close elections are challenged in the Court of Disputed Returns, it can take months to obtain certainty. In the meantime, the existing government continues in office as a <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-are-the-caretaker-government-conventions-16817">caretaker government</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-are-the-caretaker-government-conventions-16817">Explainer: what are the caretaker government conventions?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Does a hung parliament result in chaos?</h2>
<p>Hung parliaments can be <a href="https://insidestory.org.au/the-fabulous-fiftieth-nsw-parliament-and-other-minority-governments/">effective</a> or chaotic, or both, as the <a href="https://theconversation.com/looking-back-on-the-hung-parliament-16175">Gillard minority government</a> showed. Forcing a government to explain and justify every bill on its merits, and negotiate amendments to reach a reasonable consensus, is no bad thing. It can result in significant improvements to government policy and legislation. A hung parliament can be a moderating force that knocks the ideological edges off policies and pushes them into the centre ground, where they have broad acceptance.</p>
<p>On the other hand, a hung parliament can result in governments failing to take hard, but necessary, measures that are in the country’s long-term interests. It can also result in horse-trading of support for bills and unfair favouritism directed towards projects in the electorates of the crossbenchers.</p>
<p>Whether a hung parliament ends up with policy paralysis and horse-trading on the one hand or major improvements in accountability and policy on the other, depends on the quality of both the government and the crossbenchers and their commitment to the public interest over self interest. </p>
<p>So when it comes to voting, it is wise to look beyond party or independent labels to the quality and commitment of the candidate you choose – because it may turn out to be very important.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/182283/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anne Twomey has received funding from the Australian Research Council and occasionally does consultancy work for governments, parliaments and inter-governmental bodies.</span></em></p>When no party can immediately form a majority government, the negotiations begin – and the role of the crossbenchers becomes extremely important.Anne Twomey, Professor of Constitutional Law, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1814842022-04-21T20:03:06Z2022-04-21T20:03:06ZCould the 2022 election result in a hung parliament? History shows Australians have nothing to fear from it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/458808/original/file-20220420-24-5ra8vn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The first two weeks of the 2022 election campaign have increased the possibility that neither of the two major parties will gain a majority in the House of Representatives. </p>
<p>While the prospect may make some people queasy, the country’s political history tells us hung parliaments can work effectively and support productive, and even strong, governments.</p>
<p>Indeed, it is possible an indecisive election in 2022 might produce a better government than one that results in a narrow majority in the House of Representatives for one side or the other. </p>
<p>On the Coalition side, especially, there are differences of outlook between the partners as well as within each party that might produce the same kinds of unpredictability the naysayers often attribute to minority government.</p>
<p>There have been several stable minority state and territory governments over the past 30 years. But at the federal level, since the two-party system emerged in 1910, there are really two precedents for a hung parliament and minority governments. </p>
<p>The first was between 1940 and 1943, during the second world war. Robert Menzies and Arthur Fadden each led non-Labor minority governments, and these were succeeded by John Curtin’s Labor government. </p>
<p>The second precedent was between 2010 and 2013, when Julia Gillard, followed briefly by Kevin Rudd, led a minority government supported by the Greens and some of the crossbench.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/458800/original/file-20220420-21-kqziui.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/458800/original/file-20220420-21-kqziui.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458800/original/file-20220420-21-kqziui.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458800/original/file-20220420-21-kqziui.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458800/original/file-20220420-21-kqziui.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458800/original/file-20220420-21-kqziui.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458800/original/file-20220420-21-kqziui.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Prime Minister Julia Gillard made an alliance with The Greens after the 2010 election to form government.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Minority government in war-time</h2>
<p>The 1940 election left the Australian Labor Party with voting support equal to that of the United Australia Party (UAP, a predecessor to the Liberal Party) and the Country Party (predecessor to today’s Nationals) together. Two independents, representing traditionally conservative seats, held the balance. One of those independents, businessman Arthur Coles, soon joined the UAP, but withdrew after it changed leaders.</p>
<p>Coles was elected in 1940 to the seat of Henty, which included the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne, some of which now form part of the seat of Goldstein contested this year by another independent, Zoe Daniel. </p>
<p>The other independent seat in 1940 was held by wheat farmer Alexander Wilson, who had wrested the seat of Wimmera in Victoria’s north-west from the Country Party in 1937. In contrast with Coles, he leaned left – toward Labor – rather than right.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/458806/original/file-20220420-14-uocp8l.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/458806/original/file-20220420-14-uocp8l.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=814&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458806/original/file-20220420-14-uocp8l.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=814&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458806/original/file-20220420-14-uocp8l.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=814&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458806/original/file-20220420-14-uocp8l.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1023&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458806/original/file-20220420-14-uocp8l.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1023&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458806/original/file-20220420-14-uocp8l.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1023&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Robert Menzies offered to join forces with Curtin in government, but Curtin declined, fearing a split in the Labor Party.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Museum of Australian Democracy</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In a divided House of Representatives in 1940 and 1941, Menzies more than once invited Curtin to form an all-party or “national” government. Curtin, fearing a split in the Labor Party, declined the invitation and Menzies led a United Australia-Country Party coalition government supported by the independents.</p>
<p>But, while rejecting a national government, Curtin suggested something else that would help minority governments manage the House of Representatives during wartime: he accepted Labor’s membership of an Advisory War Council (AWC). It drew all the major parties in the parliament into the process of making decisions on Australia’s war effort. The two independents eventually switched sides, but not before giving the Coalition government ample opportunity to succeed. The instability of that government had nothing to do with the independents. Its problems were self-inflicted, coming from within.</p>
<p>When Curtin succeeded Menzies and Fadden as leader of a minority government, he kept the AWC. Between 1941 and 1943, one observer noted, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>not a piece of legislation could be framed by the [Labor] Cabinet with the certainty that it would be passed in the form in which the Government framed it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But with the support of the independents and deft use of the AWC, Curtin was able not only to lead a stable government but to implement ground-breaking legislation. These included the Uniform Tax legislation that led to the Federal Parliament monopolising income taxation ever since.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/458804/original/file-20220420-17-s3645r.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/458804/original/file-20220420-17-s3645r.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458804/original/file-20220420-17-s3645r.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458804/original/file-20220420-17-s3645r.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458804/original/file-20220420-17-s3645r.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=515&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458804/original/file-20220420-17-s3645r.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=515&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458804/original/file-20220420-17-s3645r.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=515&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">With the support of independents and deft use of the AWC, John Curtin was able to govern very effectively.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.chifley.org.au/in-depth/the-curtin-government-and-full-employment/">chifley.org.au</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The Gillard-Greens alliance</h2>
<p>If this seems like ancient history, we have a more recent exemplar that minority government can be made to work. Between 2010 and 2013, Julia Gillard was able to secure workable and reliable parliamentary majorities in both houses of parliament, despite Labor’s lack of control of either house. </p>
<p>In some areas, she was able to succeed where Kevin Rudd, who had a comfortable majority in the house but no majority in the Senate, had failed. Some 561 pieces of legislation were passed, many more than during the Rudd government and, remarkably, more than when John Howard had control of both houses (2005-2007). </p>
<p>Like the difficulties of the Menzies government in 1940-41, the Gillard government’s major problems did not arise so much from lack of parliamentary numbers as from internal divisions arising from the rivalry between Gillard and Rudd.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/farewell-to-2021-in-federal-politics-the-year-of-living-in-disappointment-172238">Farewell to 2021 in federal politics, the year of living in disappointment</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Could 2022 be next?</h2>
<p>A minority government established in 2022 could consider similar mechanisms to the Advisory War Council: a variation on the existing National Cabinet, consisting not only of the leaders of Commonwealth and state governments, but of representatives of the opposition, minor parties and independents as well. Its remit could be extended beyond COVID-19 to encompass necessary reforms given a mandate by the people, such as a national integrity commission, and climate change and energy policy.</p>
<p>Curtin was helped, too, by the United Australia Party Speaker of the House of Representatives, Walter Nairn, remaining in his post for most of the parliamentary term, giving him a more stable majority in the house. Had Tony Smith remained in parliament, a minority Albanese government might well have welcomed him continuing to perform this role. There would be nothing to stop one of the crossbench, moreover, accepting the role to become an “independent speaker”.</p>
<p>What does history tell us might happen if a divided House of Representatives is the outcome in May? </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/458807/original/file-20220420-16-mk2q31.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/458807/original/file-20220420-16-mk2q31.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458807/original/file-20220420-16-mk2q31.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458807/original/file-20220420-16-mk2q31.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458807/original/file-20220420-16-mk2q31.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458807/original/file-20220420-16-mk2q31.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458807/original/file-20220420-16-mk2q31.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Independents Rob Oakeshott (left) and Tony Windsor backed the Gillard government, but soon paid a hefty price for it.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Most of the crossbench will have won their seats campaigning for a robust national integrity commission, stronger action on climate change and water policy, and more serious action on gender equity. Labor’s policies on these matters place it in a stronger position to negotiate with the independents. But some of the independents, most of whom represent “natural” Coalition seats, might fear the electoral consequences of supporting a Labor minority government. </p>
<p>The experience of independents Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott is instructive here. They showed they could win historically National Party seats. But their experience would be a warning to an independent in a “natural” Coalition seat about the dangers of supporting Labor. While neither recontested his seat in 2013, there was sufficient evidence of a local backlash to indicate that holding on, in the context of a national swing to the Coalition, would not have been easy. As we pointed out in an earlier article, another scenario after May 21 might be the independents supporting a minority Coalition government supported by someone other than the present prime minister.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-if-the-2022-federal-election-gives-us-a-hung-parliament-but-those-with-the-balance-of-power-want-morrison-gone-180097">What if the 2022 federal election gives us a hung parliament, but those with the balance of power want Morrison gone?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Whatever the case, it is entirely possible a hung parliament might provide the circuit-breaker for a parliament that needs to grapple with much needed national reforms. </p>
<p>Australians have many things to fear about the future, but a minority government is among the least of their problems. If it should happen, it would rather reflect the loosening hold of the major parties on the votes of Australians, and so would be an authentic expression of an important turn in the history of our democracy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/181484/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Frank Bongiorno is a member of Kim For Canberra (Senate election) and has donated to Climate 200.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Lee is a member of the Australian Labor Party and has donated to Climate 200. </span></em></p>Since the advent of the two-party preferred system, there have been two examples of parties governing effectively in minority, and with the support of independents.Frank Bongiorno, Professor of History, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National UniversityDavid Lee, Associate Professor of History, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1735872021-12-13T19:07:10Z2021-12-13T19:07:10ZWhat’s going on with independent candidates and the federal election?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437072/original/file-20211213-27-q55mft.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=6%2C38%2C4218%2C2343&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mick Tsikas/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>With the 2022 election promising to be close – the Morrison government has just a one-seat majority – could high-profile independents be a crucial factor in key seats? </p>
<p>From former ABC journalist <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/nov/25/former-abc-journalist-zoe-daniel-to-run-as-an-independent-against-liberal-mp-tim-wilson-in-victoria">Zoe Daniel</a> in Goldstein to businesswoman <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-20/federal-election-2022-allegra-spender-wentworth-independent/100636638">Allegra Spender</a> in Wentworth, swathes of locally-endorsed independent candidates are contesting high-profile seats, with a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/oct/08/climate-200-raises-2m-in-six-weeks-to-help-independents-but-expects-liberal-party-interference">strong focus on climate change action</a>. </p>
<p>Since the introduction of proportional representation for the Senate in 1949, we have become very accustomed to independents and minor parties being important players in the Senate. But what about the lower house?</p>
<h2>How MPs get elected is important</h2>
<p>The answer lies in the system used to elect candidates to the House of Representatives. </p>
<p>Proportional representation is good for minor parties and independents, but in the lower-house, our single-member electorates create and then reinforce two-party systems.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1469045965646708739"}"></div></p>
<p>This is why, since 1910, the House of Representatives has been a two-party affair – and there is no reason to think this is fundamentally changing. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, it is quite possible the next parliament will be like the 16th and 43rd, where independent members played vital roles.</p>
<h2>The 16th parliament</h2>
<p>The 16th parliament was elected on September 21, 1940, and had three prime ministers: Bob Menzies (until August 1941), Arthur Fadden (from August to October 1941) and John Curtin (from October 1941).</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/farewell-to-2021-in-federal-politics-the-year-of-living-in-disappointment-172238">Farewell to 2021 in federal politics, the year of living in disappointment</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Two independents played a key role here – Arthur Coles (representing the former electorate of Henty, Victoria) and Alexander Wilson (Wimmera, Victoria). Originally elected to support Menzies, they withdrew that support. The short-term effect was Fadden’s brief term, but in October 1941, they installed Curtin’s Labor government. </p>
<p>The next election, in 1943, produced landslide wins in both houses for John Curtin’s Labor Party. The two independents who had played such a critical role in the 16th parliament retained their seats but became so unimportant they soon resigned.</p>
<h2>The 43rd parliament</h2>
<p>The 43rd parliament was elected in August 2010. The prime ministers were Julia Gillard until June 2013, then Kevin Rudd until Labor’s defeat in September the same year.</p>
<p>The prime ministership was famously delivered to Gillard after independents Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor threw their support behind Labor. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437075/original/file-20211213-13-123wa8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437075/original/file-20211213-13-123wa8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437075/original/file-20211213-13-123wa8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437075/original/file-20211213-13-123wa8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437075/original/file-20211213-13-123wa8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437075/original/file-20211213-13-123wa8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437075/original/file-20211213-13-123wa8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor were key independents in the 43rd parliament.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dean Lewins/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The following election in September 2013 produced a landslide win in the House of Representatives election for Tony Abbott’s Liberal-National Coalition. The two independents – so critical in the 43rd parliament – did not seek election to the 44th. </p>
<p>The four key independent members – across the 16th and 43rd parliaments – represented conservative electorates, but put Labor prime ministers into office. That Coles, Wilson, Oakeshott and Windsor would become quite so important was not predicted, because neither the 16th nor the 43rd were forecast to be “hung”.</p>
<h2>What about the 47th parliament?</h2>
<p>This is where the present situation is so different. There is <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/issue-by-issue-independents-not-committing-to-either-major-party-20211212-p59gtz.html">genuine talk</a> of a hung parliament. </p>
<p>However, I still think Labor will likely win outright next year – essentially because Prime Minister Scott Morrison does not “get it” on women, climate change and integrity issues. If that is correct, then none of the independents will be of special importance. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/is-morrison-gaining-a-reputation-for-untrustworthiness-the-answer-could-have-serious-implications-for-the-election-171816">Is Morrison gaining a reputation for untrustworthiness? The answer could have serious implications for the election</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>However, I do think it is sensible to speculate on two possible alternative results, based on my reading of individual seats. </p>
<p>At the May 2019 election, the Coalition won 77 seats, Labor 68, independents 5 and the Greens winning the single seat of Melbourne.</p>
<p>One possible scenario in 2022 sees the Coalition winning 72 seats, Labor 71, the Greens two, and independents six. In that hung parliament, I would expect Morrison to remain prime minister.</p>
<p>A second possible scenario sees Labor winning 72 seats, the Coalition 71, the Greens two, and independents six. In that hung parliament, I would expect Labor leader Anthony Albanese to replace Morrison as prime minister.</p>
<h2>Independents in 2022</h2>
<p>So, who would be these six independents? </p>
<p>Based on my analysis, I predict Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Tasmania), Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, SA), Zali Steggall (Warringah, NSW) and Bob Katter (Kennedy, Queensland) will be re-elected.</p>
<p>Two other key contests are difficult to predict. </p>
<p>Helen Haines is also hoping to be re-elected in Indi. However, there were only 2,816 votes between her and the Liberal candidate in 2019, and we are yet to know who her Liberal competitor is in 2022. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1467358850965655552"}"></div></p>
<p>In Wentworth, Dave Sharma, the Liberal winner, was only 2,346 ahead of defeated independent Kerryn Phelps. In 2022, Spender – who is well-connected and enjoys a high profile in the community – is trying to unseat Sharma. </p>
<p>Bearing in mind 100,956 formal votes were cast in Indi and 89,754 in Wentworth, these seats are only held by very small majorities.</p>
<p>Serious speculation exists the independents may win in Goldstein (Daniel), Flinders (Despi O’Connor), Hume (Penny Ackery), Mackellar (Sophie Scamps) and North Sydney (Kylea Tink). </p>
<p>In 2019, the contests in those seats were between Liberal and Labor candidates, so this makes these contests very difficult to predict. </p>
<p>As we approach an election year, a sensible, educated guess is there will be about six (or at most seven) independents elected, in Clark, Kennedy, Mayo and Warringah, plus two or three others out of the seats identified above. </p>
<h2>Nothing new here</h2>
<p>This will of course matter to the composition of the 47th parliament, but I don’t think we are seeing a new phenomenon. </p>
<p>If the 47th parliament is hung, then history tells us the election for a 48th is likely to deliver a clear result to one side or the other. And the electoral system for the lower house means the two-party system is not going anywhere.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/173587/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Malcolm Mackerras does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Each day seems to bring a new announcement of an independent taking on a high-profile Liberal candidate.Malcolm Mackerras, Distinguished Fellow, PM Glynn Institute, Australian Catholic UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1173802019-05-19T03:21:33Z2019-05-19T03:21:33ZMajority or minority Coalition government? Here’s what happens now<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/275267/original/file-20190519-69174-pxkt38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Scott Morrison has been returned as prime minister, but we don't yet know if the Coalition will get to the 77 seats it needs to form majority government (minus the speaker).</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Joel Carrett</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The election is over, the Coalition has won the most seats. But we don’t yet know if it will form a majority or a minority government. So what happens now?</p>
<p>First, there will be continued counting to determine the outcome of seats in the lower house and the more complex half-Senate election. When the outcomes have been declared by the Electoral Commission, after re-counts if necessary, the names of the winners will be certified and attached to the election writs which will then be “returned” to the governor-general for House of Representatives seats and the state governor for a state’s representatives in the Senate.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/coalition-wins-election-but-abbott-loses-warringah-plus-how-the-polls-got-it-so-wrong-116804">Coalition wins election but Abbott loses Warringah, plus how the polls got it so wrong</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The date for the return of the writs is June 28. This will allow the new Senators to commence their terms of office on Monday, July 1. The Constitution then requires that </p>
<blockquote>
<p>the Parliament shall be summoned to meet not later than thirty days after the day appointed for the return of the writs. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This means that parliament will have to sit by the end of July. It is likely to be a short sitting to deal with the formalities.</p>
<p>If anyone wants to challenge the validity of an election, including the disqualification of an elected candidate under section 44 of the Constitution, that has to be commenced within 40 days of the return of the writs on June 28.</p>
<h2>Majority government and a hung parliament</h2>
<p>If a party or coalition of parties wins 77 seats in the House of Representatives, it can govern in its own right, because after providing the speaker, this would give it a majority of 76 to 74 on the floor of the House.</p>
<p>If it wins 76 seats, it is trickier. Either it convinces an independent to take up the Speaker’s office, or it provides the speaker itself. If it provides the Speaker, then it potentially has a 75 to 75 tie on the floor of the House, unless it is supported by independents, meaning that the Speaker would have to give a casting vote.</p>
<p>This would mean that the government, while technically governing in its own right, would in practice need the support of crossbenchers, especially as conventions govern how the Speaker votes in the case of a tie. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/key-challenges-for-the-re-elected-coalition-government-our-experts-respond-117325">Key challenges for the re-elected Coalition government: our experts respond</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>If no party or coalition of parties wins 76 or more seats, then we have a hung parliament. The incumbent prime minister, Scott Morrison, then has the right to continue on as prime minister until such time as it is clear that he can command the support of a majority of the House of Representatives (for example by securing “confidence and supply” agreements with sufficient crossbenchers to show majority support) or until he faces the parliament and a test of confidence on the floor of the House of Representatives. </p>
<p>Governments can function for a full term as minority governments, as the Gillard government did. There is no requirement that there be a formal agreement with crossbenchers to support the government in the passage of “supply” (that is, the passing of the budget and the money bills necessary to run the government) or protect it against the passage of a motion of no confidence, but a minority government would most likely seek to secure such an agreement to provide some stability and security for its future.</p>
<h2>The role of the governor-general</h2>
<p>The governor-general has no role to play until such time as there is a vacancy in the office of prime minister. He cannot fill an office that is not vacant. Unless the prime minister resigns, or unless he is dismissed for refusing to resign when there has been a vote of no confidence passed against his government in the House of Representatives, then the governor-general has nothing to do but sit and watch.</p>
<p>When the governor-general does act to fill a vacancy, constitutional convention requires that he appoint as prime minister the person who is most likely to command the confidence of the House of Representatives. The governor-general is not bound by the advice of the outgoing Prime Minister about who should be appointed.</p>
<p>Once it is clear who will command the confidence of the House of Representatives, which is likely to be ascertained by vote counting and perhaps agreements with crossbenchers before the parliament sits, only then is it likely that the prime minister will resign and be reappointed if he is the one who commands that confidence, or replaced by whoever else does. The prime minister then advises the governor-general to appoint ministers under section 64 of the Constitution.</p>
<h2>In the meantime, government goes on</h2>
<p>Until a new government is formed, the existing ministers, including the prime minister, remain in office and continue to fill their ministerial functions. There must always be a government in place, even when there is uncertainty about who commands the confidence of the lower house.</p>
<p>During this period, the government operates as a “caretaker government” and does not make significant appointments or enter into significant binding contracts. The caretaker period will not end until it becomes clear who commands the confidence of the lower house and can form a government.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/117380/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anne Twomey has received funding from the Australian Research Council and occasionally does consultancy work for governments and inter-governmental bodies.</span></em></p>We now wait for the final count of seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate - and in the meantime, government continues.Anne Twomey, Professor of Constitutional Law, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1045632018-10-21T01:12:51Z2018-10-21T01:12:51ZWentworth byelection called too early for Phelps as Liberals recover in late counting<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/241509/original/file-20181021-105764-1og15kf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Prime Minister Scott Morrison concedes the Liberals lost the byelection in Wentworth on Saturday night- but postal votes have added uncertainty to the outcome.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dan Himbrechts</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>UPDATE SUNDAY NIGHT</strong>: Update Sunday night: Phelps has <a href="https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionPage-22844-152.htm">extended her lead to 1,626 votes</a> this afternoon. The correction of errors in two booths identified by Bonham increased her lead to 1,862 votes, while additional postals subtracted. There are probably about 4,000 postals to come by November 2, but Sharma would need about 70% of them to win; he’s currently winning 63.6% of postals. Unless there are further substantial counting errors that assist Sharma, Phelps has very likely won Wentworth.</p>
<hr>
<p>On Sunday morning, independent Kerryn Phelps leads the Liberals in the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/wentworth-by-election-2018/results/">Wentworth byelection</a> by a 50.6-49.4 margin, a swing against the Liberals of 18.4% since the 2016 election. Primary votes were 43.0% for the Liberals’ Dave Sharma (down 19.3%), 29.3% Phelps, 11.5% for Labor’s Tim Murray (down 6.2%) and 8.6% Greens (down 6.3%). </p>
<p>Early on election night, it appeared certain the Liberals would lose. After 11pm, pre-poll booths dramatically narrowed Phelps’ margin from 54.4-45.6 to 51.9-48.1. In particular, the <a href="https://www.pollbludger.net/results/fed-2018-10-wentworth-results.htm">Rose Bay pre-poll</a> booth gave Sharma almost 70% after preferences, with over 6,400 formal votes at that booth. Almost 5,200 formal postals then split to Sharma by 64.4-35.6, reducing Phelps’ lead to her current 884 vote margin. Two hospital booths counted Sunday morning also damaged Phelps.</p>
<p>Another 1,266 postals are awaiting processing, and probably another 4,000 will arrive by the deadline for postal votes reception on November 2. If Sharma’s dominance with postals continues, he could win Wentworth after it was called for Phelps early on election night. In byelections, there are very few votes other than postals to be counted after election day; in general elections, Liberals usually perform badly on absent votes.</p>
<p>Analyst <a href="http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2018/10/wentworth-live-majority-on-line-again.html">Kevin Bonham</a> has identified two discrepancies in election-day booths where Phelps performed much worse on preferences than expected, given primary votes at those booths. If these booths are corrected in Phelps’ favour, she will gain enough votes to offset the postals, but there may be other errors that assist Sharma. Election-night figures will be carefully rechecked over the next few days.</p>
<p>If corrections to the election-night count favour Phelps, she is very likely to win. If there is no substantial correction or corrections cancel out, Sharma is about a 60% chance to win, given his dominance on postals, of which there are probably about 5,000 left to count.</p>
<p>Wentworth has <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/wentworth-by-election-2018/">existed since Federation</a>, and had always been held by the Liberals or their conservative predecessors. The loss of Wentworth would deprive the Coalition of its parliamentary majority, and is thus more important than the average byelection, where the government’s majority is not threatened, allowing voters to lodge a protest vote without risking the government.</p>
<p>On early counting figures, there were many media commentators talking about a “record” swing against the Liberals. Bonham said that, though the swings were large, they were not a record even at that time. Talking about a “two party” swing against the Liberals is wrong, because Labor did not make the final two at this byelection.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.pollbludger.net/by-elections/fed-2018-10-wentworth.htm">Poll Bludger</a> has details of the five Wentworth ReachTEL polls, taken from August 27, three days after the change of PM, to October 15. These polls were conducted for various left-wing groups. In the August 27 poll, Sharma had 34.6% of the primary vote, but recovered to 43.0% on September 27, before slumping back to 33.4% on October 15. </p>
<p>Phelps had 22.5% on September 17, but slumped to 16.7% on October 2, then recovered to 26.3% on October 15. Murray was up to 25.7% on October 2, but fell back to 22.0% on October 15.</p>
<p>Given the disparity between the pre-poll and postal votes and election-day votes, it is likely that polling throughout the Wentworth campaign understated the Liberals’ vote; seat polls are notoriously unreliable. The Liberals’ bad parliamentary week resulted in a worse election-day performance, but pre-poll and postal votes were not as affected by last week.</p>
<p>Media expectations were that if Phelps made the final two, she could defeat Sharma. If Murray made the final two, Sharma would win. As a result, people who wanted Sharma defeated switched to Phelps. The electoral commission will do a two-party count between Sharma and Murray, but probably not for at least two weeks. Sharma will win this count, vindicating the switch to Phelps.</p>
<p>Turnbull’s personal vote was probably worth about ten points to the Liberals in Wentworth. After a large fall following Turnbull’s exit, the Liberals’ primary vote was improving in ReachTEL polls of Wentworth before the events of the last two weeks appeared to push it down again.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/poll-wrap-worst-reaction-to-midterm-pm-change-in-newspoll-history-contrary-polls-in-duttons-dickson-102186">Poll wrap: Worst reaction to midterm PM change in Newspoll history; contrary polls in Dutton's Dickson</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>On my <a href="http://adrianbeaumont.net/reachtel-50-50-tie-in-wentworth-and-where-morrison-could-have-problems/">personal website</a>, I said that the Coalition under Scott Morrison could have problems among better-educated voters, and that Morrison’s social conservatism would not appeal to an electorate that voted Yes to same-sex marriage by an 81-19 margin, the fourth highest vote for SSM in a federal seat.</p>
<p>Electorates like Wentworth have voted Liberal for economic reasons even though they are socially progressive. If the Liberals lose Wentworth, it would be because they had appeared to become too socially conservative and too sceptical of climate change action under Morrison. Phelps was a good fit for Wentworth, being <a href="https://www.afr.com/news/kerryn-phelps-calls-for-5year-freeze-on-superannuation-opposes-franking-changes-20181017-h16s38">economically conservative</a> but socially progressive.</p>
<h2>US midterm elections update</h2>
<p>I wrote for <a href="https://www.pollbludger.net/2018/10/19/us-mid-terms-minus-twenty-days/">The Poll Bludger</a> on Friday about the November 6 US midterm elections. Democrats are likely to win the House, but Republicans are likely to retain the Senate. Trump’s ratings have improved.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/104563/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>After election night reports of a thumping win in by independent Kerryn Phelps, the Liberals have recovered significantly in postal votes - so much so, the result is now uncertain.AAdrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/793842017-06-20T08:28:17Z2017-06-20T08:28:17ZHung parliaments have voted down the Queen’s speech before – here’s what happened<p>To govern effectively in the UK, the prime minister needs to command a majority in the House of Commons. Convention dictates that following a general election, the leader of the largest party is “invited” by the monarch to form a government. To demonstrate that the new government is legitimate, the Queen presents its programme to parliament in the Queen’s speech, which must be put to a vote in the commons and which the government must win.</p>
<p>Britain’s current prime minister, Theresa May, is now eight seats shy of an overall majority, meaning the country is now in a <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk-election-hung-parliament-casts-doubt-over-theresa-mays-future-79169?sr=1">hung parliament</a>. This is why talks continue to form a “confidence and supply” <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-will-conservative-deal-with-the-dup-work-79448?sr=1">arrangement</a> with the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), which has ten seats. The first test this will face is the vote in the days following the debate on the Queen’s speech on June 21. </p>
<p>The Telegraph has <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/19/exclusive-labour-liberal-democrats-scottish-national-party-mps/">reported</a> that Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party could introduce amendments during the vote to force a vote of no confidence in May’s government. </p>
<p>There have been three occasions in modern parliamentary history when a government failed to secure a majority on the Queen’s speech vote. May actually finds herself better placed than her predecessors. </p>
<h2>Gladstone and the Irish home rulers</h2>
<p>The first instance was in January 1886. In June 1885, the Liberal government lost a vote on the budget and the prime minister, William Gladstone, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/gladstone_william_ewart.shtml">resigned</a>. A general election could not be held immediately because a law governing the redistribution of parliamentary seats had yet to be fully implemented. The Marquess of Salisbury, Conservative leader in the Lords, formed a minority government until a general election was held in December.</p>
<p>The result was Liberals 319, Conservatives 237 and the Irish Parliamentary Party (IPP) 86 – a hung parliament. The IPP supported Irish home rule, a form of devolved government similar to the current devolution settlements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and now had the balance of power. The Conservatives had flirted with the IPP during 1885 and many home rule MPs <a href="http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199549344.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199549344-e-029">shared</a> Conservative ideological sympathies. As it was not inevitable that the home rulers would oppose a Conservative Queen’s speech and Salisbury had incumbency on his side, he was invited to form a government. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174455/original/file-20170619-12400-1ioixsc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174455/original/file-20170619-12400-1ioixsc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=908&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174455/original/file-20170619-12400-1ioixsc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=908&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174455/original/file-20170619-12400-1ioixsc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=908&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174455/original/file-20170619-12400-1ioixsc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1141&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174455/original/file-20170619-12400-1ioixsc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1141&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174455/original/file-20170619-12400-1ioixsc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1141&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">1886 cartoon showing Gladstone kicked in the air by men angry about the Home Rule Bill.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gladstone_being_kicked_in_the_air_by_angry_men_Wellcome_V0050369.jpg">Wellcome Library via Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>However, in the closing days of the general election, Gladstone signalled his support for Irish home rule. The Liberals and the IPP passed an amendment to the Queen’s speech and Salisbury’s <a href="http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1886/jan/28/parliament-adjournment-resignation-of">government fell</a>. Gladstone formed a government with the IPP, effectively entering into a “confidence and supply” agreement on the condition he placed an Irish Home Rule Bill before the Commons. This he <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/parliamentandireland/overview/two-home-rule-bills/">did</a> in April 1886. But it provoked a Liberal split and parliament was dissolved. The Conservatives comfortably won the general election.</p>
<h2>A second stumble</h2>
<p>The second occasion when a new government lost the vote on the Queen’s speech occurred a few years later after the general election of 1892. The result was: Conservatives and the Liberal Unionist 315, Liberals 272 and the Irish Home Rulers 81. </p>
<p>The Irish had the balance of power and once again Gladstone’s support for Irish home rule ensured they supported a Liberal “no confidence” <a href="http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1892/aug/08/address-in-answer-to-her-majestys-most#column_94">amendment</a> to the new government’s Queen’s speech which Salisbury had put forward. Gladstone then formed a government and passed a second Home Rule Bill in the Commons – though it was defeated in the Lords.</p>
<h2>Baldwin defeated</h2>
<p>The third occasion was in 1923, but under different circumstances. The creation of the Irish Free State in 1921 had removed the IPP home rule MPs from the Commons and near-universal suffrage after 1918 made the Labour party the second party in the Commons. As the result of the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8572796.stm">general election in December 1923</a> demonstrated, the new circumstances did not immediately translate into a two-party system: Conservatives 258, Labour 191 and Liberal 158. </p>
<p>Conservative leader Stanley Baldwin had fought the campaign on <a href="http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803102137307">tariff reform</a>, anathema to liberal free trade principles, and the Liberals and Labour combined to defeat the Conservative King’s speech in <a href="http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1924/jan/21/debate-on-the-address">early 1924</a>. </p>
<p>Labour formed a minority government with Liberal support, which governed successfully in 1924 for nine months with Labour leader Ramsay MacDonald as prime minister. However, the Liberal party came to think that the Labour government was unduly influenced by the communist left and it <a href="http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1924/oct/08/attorney-generals-explanation">supported a vote</a> of no confidence on October 8 that year. This inevitably led to a general election. The Conservatives won a thumping majority and the Liberals were <a href="http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/history/the-1924-general-election/">reduced</a> to just 40 seats, from which they’ve never really recovered.</p>
<h2>Lessons from history</h2>
<p>Although the situations in 1886, 1892 and 1923 were very different to the one May faces today, they do suggest some parallels. In 1886 and 1893, the political legitimacy of the confidence and supply arrangement was questioned on a number of grounds. </p>
<p>The widespread sense that the DUP, a small, exclusively Northern Irish party, should not have such influence recalls the <a href="https://archive.org/details/englandscaseaga01dicegoog">argument</a> made by the jurist A V Dicey in the 1880s and 90s that Gladstone had allowed the Irish minority to dictate to the English majority. The Conservative party also condemned the Liberal alliance with the Irish nationalists back then as immoral and an alliance with criminality and terror. The morality of the deal with the DUP has also been <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/10/tory-dup-deal-ruth-davidson-receives-assurances-from-pm-over-gay-rights">questioned</a>, though on largely different grounds. </p>
<p>Potentially more serious are the consequences, both political and legal, for the Good Friday Agreement, which <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-international-law-could-scupper-a-tory-deal-with-the-dup-79583?sr=1">demands</a> political neutrality from the British government regarding power-sharing in Northern Ireland. As such, the DUP’s determination to keep Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn out of Number 10 makes it likely May will get her Queen’s speech approved by the Commons. But it is unlikely that this will lead to a period of strong and stable government. </p>
<p>The historical examples suggest that forming a government off the back of a Queen’s speech defeat does not lead to effective government in the medium term. With the <a href="https://theconversation.com/ukip-faces-a-difficult-future-after-voters-deserted-britains-brexit-party-78883?sr=1">demise</a> of UKIP, May is advantaged by the relative unity of the right and, despite talk of the return of two-party politics, the continued fragmentation of the left. The Labour party, having recovered something of its capacity for unity and loyalty, should focus on winning the next general election. If they are to make a genuine stab at restoring UK social democracy, they’ll want to start the task with a comfortable majority for their first Queen’s speech since 2009.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79384/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Kelly does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>And two of the occasions involved Irish MPs.Matthew Kelly, Professor of Modern History, Northumbria University, NewcastleLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/790752017-06-09T10:04:24Z2017-06-09T10:04:24ZHow populism explains May’s stunning UK election upset: Experts react<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173052/original/file-20170609-32294-1443plx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Corbyn may not have won enough seats to take over Parliament, but he dealt May a serious blow nonetheless. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Markus Schreiber</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Editor’s note: U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May’s election gamble failed badly as <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/live/election-2017-40171454">her Conservatives lost 12 seats</a>, leaving them with 318, shy of a majority. It was a <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk-election-results-stun-conservatives-outcome-hangs-in-balance-experts-react-79169">stunning loss</a> for a party earlier projected to gain dozens of seats. Without a majority, the Conservatives <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-uk-election-fails-to-produce-a-winner-heres-what-happens-now-79193">will have to rely on another party</a> to govern – known as a hung Parliament. If they’re unable to forge a coalition, rival Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn – whose party gained 31 seats – would be able to give it a go. We asked two experts to offer their insights on what Americans should make of the election and its results.</em></p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173057/original/file-20170609-16440-1n080r4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173057/original/file-20170609-16440-1n080r4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173057/original/file-20170609-16440-1n080r4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173057/original/file-20170609-16440-1n080r4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173057/original/file-20170609-16440-1n080r4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173057/original/file-20170609-16440-1n080r4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173057/original/file-20170609-16440-1n080r4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">May had a bad night and may face a struggle over her party’s leadership.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Alastair Grant</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Tories’ growing populism begets a power struggle</h2>
<p><strong>Charles Hankla, George State University</strong></p>
<p>The results of this election show how similar, and yet how different, British politics are from what is happening in America.</p>
<p>As in the United States, there has been an explosion of populism in Britain, most recently evidenced by the Brexit referendum. This new political force is translating into less liberal policies from the major parties.</p>
<p>In continental Europe, the new populism is mostly embodied by the resurgent far right. But in Britain, as in America, it is being filtered through the existing two-party system – though the U.K.’s smaller parties do complicate the electoral map.</p>
<p>To accommodate the political winds, May and her Conservatives decided to shift their electoral strategy <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/18/theresa-may-redefines-conservatism-tories-move-thatcher/">away from Margaret Thatcher’s</a> pro-market economic approach toward a greater focus on immigration, security and economic nationalism. </p>
<p>Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, for his part, <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/jeremy-corbyns-victory-and-the-demise-of-new-labour">deserted</a> the more centrist “New Labour” ideas of Tony Blair in favor of a more robust form of <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/world/europe/britains-labour-party-pledges-broad-tax-increases-to-pay-for-new-benefits.html">social democracy</a>. </p>
<p>The American left, like its British counterpart, has also become increasingly <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/why-america-is-moving-left/419112/">skeptical</a> of <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/183686/democrats-shift-left.aspx">unbridled markets</a>. But among Republicans, a traditional hostility to “big government” makes <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/18/theresa-may-redefines-conservatism-tories-move-thatcher/">pro-worker redistributive policies</a>, some of which the Tories have adopted to win votes, hard to stomach. For this reason, populism on the American right has mostly taken the form of protectionist and anti-immigrant policies, as embodied by Donald Trump.</p>
<p>Yesterday’s results were devastating for May and indicate that the Conservatives were ultimately unable to balance their new populist message with their traditional support for neo-liberal policies. </p>
<p>Corbyn, for his part, will use this unexpected victory (of sorts) to solidify his hold over the Labour Party and to move it further to the left.</p>
<p>It remains to be seen whether the election will result in a minority or a coalition government, or whether the parties will be well and truly deadlocked. Whatever happens, the British electorate, like its cousin across the pond, has shown itself to be highly polarized. </p>
<p>Still, at a minimum, Britain’s parliamentary structure, along with the ability of the Labour leadership to co-opt disillusioned voters, seems to have spared Britain the fate of America – the takeover of government by a populist insurgent.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173050/original/file-20170609-32339-45s8xy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173050/original/file-20170609-32339-45s8xy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=439&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173050/original/file-20170609-32339-45s8xy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=439&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173050/original/file-20170609-32339-45s8xy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=439&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173050/original/file-20170609-32339-45s8xy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=551&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173050/original/file-20170609-32339-45s8xy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=551&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173050/original/file-20170609-32339-45s8xy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=551&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Corbyn and his Labour Party had reasons to smile on election night.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Frank Augstein</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>For US companies, it’s business as usual</h2>
<p><strong>Terrence Guay, Pennsylvania State University</strong></p>
<p>So now that we know the results, what are the implications for U.S. business interests in the U.K., <a href="https://theconversation.com/love-it-or-leave-it-why-the-uks-brexit-vote-should-matter-to-americans-60835">America’s seventh-biggest trading partner</a>? </p>
<p>May took a <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/av/election-2017-40209491/election-2017-exit-polls-laura-kuenssberg-s-analysis">calculated political risk</a> and lost. While the market reaction has been severe, with the <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-08/pound-slumps-as-u-k-exit-poll-shows-tories-losing-majority">pound plunging</a>, it’s nothing new to companies, which take calculated risks like that every day – some pay off and some do not. </p>
<p>So first of all, U.S. corporate executives will need to take a deep breath. Assuming a combination of other parties do not cobble together at least 322 seats – despite winning seven seats, Northern Ireland’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/fighting-an-election-only-to-refuse-a-seat-sinn-fein-and-westminster-abstention-76963">Sinn Fein will not send MPs</a> to London – the Conservatives will dominate a coalition government and have considerable sway over policy. </p>
<p>This means a “<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-the-uk-election-means-for-brexit-and-america-78811">hard Brexit</a>,” as outlined by May in <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/17/theresa-mays-brexit-speech-full/">January</a>, and as seen in the European Union’s tough <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/31/full-eus-draft-guidelines-brexit-negotiations/">negotiating guidelines</a>, is unlikely to change. But this is what most U.S. companies have been planning for anyway since last June’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/britain-exits-the-eu-how-brexit-will-hit-america-61412">Brexit vote</a>. Many companies, particularly banks and financial institutions, are already planning to move some of their <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/business/brexit-britain-eu-economy-banks.html">U.K. operations</a> to other EU countries to take advantage of the single market rules.</p>
<p>This process will continue no matter who’s in power, since only the low-polling Liberal Democrat and Green parties promised a <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2017-39955886">Brexit revote</a>. </p>
<p>Second, a weakened Conservative Party will need more foreign friends, and that includes U.S. companies. Since Brexit, some foreign businesses have threatened to downsize or close their U.K. operations as leverage for obtaining <a href="https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-nissan-subsidies-analysis-idUKKBN12X0K7">government subsidies</a>. Expect more companies to use this strategy with a weaker U.K. government.</p>
<p>As I argue in my recent <a href="http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/management/international-business/business-environment-europe-firms-governments-and-institutions?format=PB&isbn=9780521694162">book</a>, the business environment of Europe is much more than the U.K. market, and U.S. companies have become increasingly aware of this since Brexit. </p>
<p>In other words, it’s business as usual, and that means the continued segmenting of companies’ U.K. and EU strategies, regardless of who is governing in London.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79075/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>UK voters delivered a devastating blow to the prime minister, who combined a populist message with her party’s traditional economic policies. She may now face a power struggle.Terrence Guay, Clinical Professor of International Business, Penn StateCharles Hankla, Associate Professor of Political Science, Georgia State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/791932017-06-09T07:36:14Z2017-06-09T07:36:14ZThe UK election fails to produce a winner – here’s what happens now<p>Theresa May’s Conservative party has failed to win a majority in a snap election she called, leaving the UK with a <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk-election-hung-parliament-casts-doubt-over-theresa-mays-future-79169">hung parliament</a> and no clear route to a government. When an exit poll correctly <a href="https://theconversation.com/ge2017-can-you-trust-that-surprise-exit-poll-79170">signalled the result</a> as polls closed, the pound fell on international markets. But what does a hung parliament or a minority government actually mean for the UK?</p>
<p>Before we look at the arithmetic, the first thing to say, perhaps, is that despite the fear of instability in the coming days and weeks, the hung parliament represents the divided nature of the British electorate. The Brexit referendum <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-geography-of-brexit-what-the-vote-reveals-about-the-disunited-kingdom-61633">split the country</a> down the middle, and all of the resultant fallout means that the picture is complex. The fact that this complexity has been reflected in this vote should not be seen as a problem. It’s a snapshot of the true political position in the UK.</p>
<h2>Coming up short</h2>
<p>So then, what about <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2017/jun/08/live-uk-election-results-in-full-2017">the numbers</a>, and what lies ahead? The Conservatives, as projected, are the largest party, winning 319 seats in the House of Commons. However, with a total number of 650 seats available, they are short of the 326 needed for a majority.</p>
<iframe id="datawrapper-chart-VUet5" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/VUet5/2/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>The pro-Brexit UK Independence Party vote collapsed, leaving the party with no seats, so the only real option for the Conservatives is to work with Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). The latter has ten seats, so a deal with the Conservatives would result in a government with a very slim majority for parliamentary votes. </p>
<p>But if they take this route it would take an iron discipline within the Conservative party to put together and pass a legislative programme for the next five years. Just a couple of dissenting voices (quite the norm in parliamentary politics) would mean losing votes in the Commons.</p>
<p>With the UK facing the most difficult set of negotiations it has faced in several generations in <a href="https://theconversation.com/general-election-2017-what-does-this-mean-for-brexit-79185">dealing with Brexit</a>, a minority government propped up by the Ulster Unionists would be an unenviable position to be in.</p>
<h2>Misguided May</h2>
<p>On top of this, there will now probably also be an internal wrangle in the Tory party over who might replace May as leader and prime minister. Because make no mistake, her miscalculation in calling the snap election ranks as one of the biggest political misjudgements we have ever seen in British politics.</p>
<p>But May could insist on staying on as leader: after all, she has shown herself to be utterly inflexible during her campaign. Remaining, though, would undermine the party and government even more. Can a country so divided be led by a damaged political figure?</p>
<p>Meanwhile, despite being written off as the inevitable loser in this election, Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party has increased its share of the vote by 10%, and has won more than 30 extra seats, taking its total to 261. This is well short of the Conservatives, and well short of winning a majority but it’s a huge victory nonetheless. Remember that May called the election precisely because the polls were telling everyone that the Labour vote stood to collapse to a historic low.</p>
<p>In the end, the reverse happened, and Labour is back in the game. In terms of what the party can do in the next parliament, if a deal between the Conservatives and the DUP were to fail to materialise, the Labour party could try to put a coalition of the left together. However, even with all parties on board, it would still only be able to form <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-do-minority-governments-survive-39752">a minority government</a>, which would have even more difficulty than the Tories in putting together a legislative programme.</p>
<p>It’s difficult to see how any of the options above could survive a full term, and that means one thing: yet another general election, perhaps as soon as within the next 12 months. The turnaround in this election might well represent a groundswell among the electorate for a different approach to politics than the one taken by both main parties since the financial crash of 2008. Corbyn and Labour tapped into this over the past six weeks, and in a very short time, turned this election on its head. With another 12 months to nurture this sentiment, who knows what they could do.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79193/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andy Price does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Conservatives are still the largest party, but how long can they hold onto power after spectacular miscalculation?Andy Price, Head of Politics, Sheffield Hallam UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/791692017-06-08T22:23:31Z2017-06-08T22:23:31ZUK election: hung parliament casts doubt over Theresa May’s future<p><em>As the results continue to come in, it appears Theresa May’s snap election gamble has backfired. A hung parliament looks on the cards. Theresa May’s leadership is in grave doubt. The shape of the next government remains unclear. Experts react to the news.</em></p>
<p><strong>Stuart Wilks-Heeg, head of politics, University of Liverpool</strong></p>
<p>Theresa May is in deep, deep trouble. We know why she called the election; she wanted a bigger majority and a strong mandate ahead of the Brexit negotiations. At the time, it looked like she couldn’t fail, and now it seems that she has failed spectacularly. The campaign has fatally undermined her leadership, and the one thing that could have saved her – if she came through with a strong majority for the Conservative party – hasn’t happened. I think she is finished politically – whether she resigns, or is pushed out by her own party remains to be seen. </p>
<p><strong>Michael Kitson, University Senior Lecturer in International Macroeconomics, University of Cambridge</strong></p>
<p>The election result will bring economic uncertainty and instability not strength and stability. Many will focus on the short-term froth of falls in the pound and in stock markets but of greater concern are the significant long-term problems facing the UK economy. </p>
<p>Brexit is the most pressing issue: a common refrain was that an increased majority would provide Theresa May with more bargaining power over the terms of withdrawal. Well that cunning plan has gone down the drain. If the Conservatives form a minority government, the prime minister (whoever that may be) will have to balance the demands of fervent Brexit hardliners on their backbenches while confronted with an emboldened opposition. </p>
<p>As it stands, there is no coherent plan for Brexit, a failure often justified under the convenient veil of “not showing one’s hand”. Of additional concern is that there is an absence of a “long-term economic plan” – a soundbite that left the government with George Osborne. The economic strategy of the Conservatives is at best inchoate and, at worst, incoherent. It is a mixture of austerity-lite combined with an ill-defined industrial policy that will do little to increase productivity in the economy. We must wait to see if a new economic strategy emerges but a minority government is more likely to expend energy on short-term survival rather than planning for growth. </p>
<p><strong>Robin Pettit, senior lecturer in comparative politics, Kingston University</strong></p>
<p>Some big names went tonight. Amber Rudd survived in Hastings and Rye, but only just, serving as an indication of the kind of night the Conservatives have had. Former SNP leader Alex Salmond was ousted, as was former Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg – perhaps in a delayed backlash by young voters against tuition fees. There are some parallels to be drawn here. These high-profile losses suggest that both parties campaigned on issues which were largely felt to be settled: the SNP on a second Scottish independence referendum, and the Liberal Democrats on a second EU referendum, once a deal had been negotiated – neither of which the British people particularly wanted. Rather, there seems to be an acceptance of Brexit more generally – just not of Theresa May’s version. </p>
<iframe id="datawrapper-chart-VUet5" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/VUet5/2/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<h2>Labour</h2>
<p><strong>Richard Murphy, professor of practice in international political economy, City, University of London</strong></p>
<p>Labour has had an exceptional night. Many will be feeling euphoric. But the reality is that it has not won and it seems incredibly unlikely that it could put together any form of Progressive Alliance. With a hung parliament on the cards it is almost certain that the next election campaign has already begun. The battle for a majority is now underway. To achieve this Labour has three tasks to concentrate on.</p>
<p>The first is to present a coherent Brexit plan. The second is to end its infighting and build cohesion behind an agreed policy platform. Third, it has to shatter the magic money tree myth by getting people to understand that its macroeconomic policy reflects <a href="https://theconversation.com/jeremy-corbyn-and-the-economics-of-the-real-world-47314">the way the world really works</a>.</p>
<p>Labour has done well. But in a few months it may have to do even better to get into government. And to everyone’s surprise that is now politically and economically plausible. </p>
<p><strong>Ben Williams, tutor in politics and political theory, University of Salford</strong></p>
<p>The Tories had estimated that the vast bulk of the collapsing UKIP vote would go to them in this election, particularly in the industrial north. Some claimed the party had <a href="http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2017-06-08/joe-pike-theresa-mays-yorkshire-visits-looked-to-have-been-for-nothing/">adopted</a> an “M62 strategy” and sought to gain multiple parliamentary gains along the corridor of this motorway spanning across Lancashire and Yorkshire. But that doesn’t seem to have happened and a whole range of key target seats – such as Chester, Halifax and Darlington – that the Conservatives hoped to gain have stayed Labour red as a result. Even the very marginal seat of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000543">Barrow</a>, held by arch-Corbyn critic John Woodcock, has remained Labour against the odds.</p>
<p>But while Labour has performed as strongly as ever in its inner-city northern city strongholds such as Manchester, Sheffield and Liverpool, it was seen as vulnerable in the northern suburbs and smaller towns. However, its vote has proved to be resilient, fuelled by a higher national turnout and an influx of younger voters, as has been evident across the country.</p>
<p>Labour has even gone on to make some surprising northern gains such as the long-shot of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000645">Colne Valley</a> in Yorkshire, as well as other seats that the Conservatives were expected to hold fairly comfortably, such as Bury North, Warrington South and Weaver Vale. But such gains were somewhat sporadic, and Labour failed to gain various other northern seats that the party held prior to 2010 and which would be required to form a majority Labour government, while also failing to regain the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000647">Copeland</a> seat it lost in a by-election in early 2017.</p>
<p>The results in the north, while not particularly brilliant for Labour, were crucially better than expected. This in itself indicates some degree of appeal and durability to Corbynism outside of its perceived inner-city and London strongholds.</p>
<h2>Brexit</h2>
<p><strong>Kathryn Simpson, lecturer in politics and public services, Manchester Metropolitan University</strong></p>
<p>Dubbed the Brexit election, this general election provided very little clarity and specific details on what Brexit negotiations would be and what a post-Brexit UK would look like. And the electorate has recognised this.</p>
<p>There will not be a <a href="https://theconversation.com/strong-and-stable-leadership-inside-the-conservatives-election-slogan-77121">strong and stable government</a> by the time Brexit negotations begin on June 19. That will have a robust impact on Brexit.</p>
<p>The Brexit clock started ticking when May triggered Article 50 in March. Taking six weeks out of the <a href="https://blogs.surrey.ac.uk/politics/2017/03/24/an-article-50-timeline-infographic/">two-year Brexit negotiating window</a> to conduct a general election was risky, as it has eaten into the time available to deal with the EU. Now, with so much uncertainty about how the next government will be formed, more time will inevitably be lost.</p>
<p><strong>Daniel Fitzpatrick, lecturer in politics, Aston University</strong></p>
<p>In an election called to secure a clear mandate for Brexit, the result is no obvious mandate for any party. The mandate for the Conservative version of hard Brexit is in tatters, while a second independence referendum in Scotland is moot given the swing away from the Scottish National Party towards the unionist parties – the Scottish Conservatives particularly.</p>
<p>Political commentators are fond of naming elections, as a shorthand for the dominant issue of the day: the 1983 “Falklands” election, the 2005 “Iraq” election. Psephologists will tell you that such retrospective rationalisations do little to convey the complexities of voting behaviour.</p>
<p>But, rarely has an election been characterised so one-dimensionally before the campaign even begun. Although labelled the “Brexit election” by the Conservatives, Theresa May did little to establish that narrative beyond her supposed leadership credentials, which, to put it mildly, faltered. It figured surprisingly little in the election campaigns of the other mainstream parties, except for the Liberal Democrats.</p>
<p>Taking a largely ambivalent stance on EU, Labour has gained Remain seats in London and the South East and retained and won back marginal Leave seats in the North. It looks like neither the so-called Leave or Remain vote offers a reliable indication of the new electoral map. It has figured in certain parts of the country, but nowhere near as decisive as imagined. </p>
<h2>Scotland</h2>
<p><strong>William McDougall, lecturer in politics, Glasgow Caledonian University</strong></p>
<p>The Conservative party are performing much better in Scotland than anywhere else. In that sense, Scotland is again having its own election, different from the rest of the UK. This is probably due to the fact that the Scottish Conservatives have been able to run a separate campaign, disassociating themselves from Theresa May and the poor campaign the Conservatives have run in the UK as a whole. They’ve been able to focus on an anti-independence, anti-SNP message. But that does mean that it’s less clear what else the Scottish Conservative MPs stand for. Once they start voting in Westminster, we’ll have a clearer idea of where they stand on other policies.</p>
<p>The Scottish Conservatives could now play quite a vital role in the Westminster parliament. It could make all the difference for May as she attempts to hold on to power. It’s ironic: people often say that Scotland never gets to influence UK election results, and now it could be the Scottish Conservatives who keep the party on top. It puts their leader Ruth Davidson in a strong position within the Conservative party, although it might not have an impact on the direction of Brexit: the new Scottish Conservative MPs are likely to behave themselves in that respect.</p>
<h2>Liberal Democrats</h2>
<p><strong>Matthew Cole, teaching fellow, department of history, University of Birmingham</strong></p>
<p>The immediate evidence is that the two-party system has returned with a vengeance after a 30-year slumber, sweeping away UKIP and penning the Lib Dems back in their 2015 electoral ghetto.</p>
<p>Already three of the eight seats they won in 2015 have been lost, all in the north of England. Party leader Tim Farron was made to endure a recount in his own constituency, and it looks likely that the party’s overall share of the national vote has fallen back from its dismal 2015 low of 7.7%. The hope of reaching out to the 48% of Britons who voted to remain in the EU became a bitterly ironic dream, spiked by the triggering of Article 50 before the campaign; the plan for a second referendum has been marginalised politically.</p>
<p>There are silver linings to the cloud, however. The Liberal Democrats have established a core of representation in the capital and in Scotland, adding experienced and media-friendly figures to their enlarged parliamentary team – notably Vince Cable. Tim Farron can also take some credit for challenging and undermining the harsh version of Brexit which failed to secure Theresa May’s ambitions for a landslide majority. And the hung parliament which is emerging may be a productive environment in which to dilute that plan. </p>
<p>Compared to their highest hopes this election outcome must be disheartening for Liberal Democrat campaigners; but set against their worst fears it may in due course come to look like a stage in a process of consolidation.</p>
<h2>Northern Ireland</h2>
<p><strong>John Garry, professor of political behaviour, Queen’s University Belfast</strong></p>
<p>It seems that the two big parties have swept away all the others in Northern Ireland. Apart from an independent unionist candidate retaining her seat, the hardline unionist party, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), have had a great electoral night at the expense of the Ulster Unionist Party, which has lost its two seats. On the nationalist side, it has been a dreadful election for the moderate Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), which has lost its three seats. The more hardline nationalists, Sinn Fein, have dramatically increased their support. </p>
<p>With the cross-party Alliance also winning no seats, the overall picture emerging is of a more polarised politics in Northern Ireland. This bodes ill for the kind of compromise and conciliation that will be needed to re-establish a power-sharing government – a process that was effectively put on hold once Theresa May called this snap Westminster election.</p>
<p>It is ironic that both the DUP and Sinn Fein, which are finding it difficult to form a government in Northern Ireland, were regarded as potentially key players in the election night commentary on government formation at Westminster. Would Sinn Fein change its policy of abstention and possibly prop up a Jeremy Corbyn premiership? “No”, was <a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3758550/gerry-adams-congratulates-jeremy-corbyn-after-shock-election-2017-exit-poll-result/">the quick response</a> from the Sinn Fein leadership. It’s more plausible that the DUP could play a crucial role in sustaining a Conservative administration.</p>
<p><strong>Neil Matthews, lecturer in British politics, University of Bristol</strong></p>
<p>This election has arguably produced the best of results for Northern Ireland. The granite-hard Brexit promised by Theresa May – a scenario which would have disproportionately severe consequences for the region – has been effectively shelved.</p>
<p>In the weeks before the election both the European Union and UK government were at pains to stress the importance of Northern Ireland to the Brexit negotiations, declaring it a “first order” issue. Both agreed that any deal should see as “soft” a border as possible between Northern Ireland (i.e. the UK) and the Republic of Ireland (i.e. the EU). The hard gains of the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement were not to be trampled on by Brexit. </p>
<p>Those hard gains were, however, <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-northern-ireland-peace-process-george-mitchell-stormont-good-friday-agreement-a7600086.html">widely seen to be under threat</a> from May’s Brexit plan. If she returned from Brussels without a deal – a scenario countenanced by the Conservative manifesto – then any bespoke arrangement for Northern Ireland would have inevitably been chucked out with the bath water. With this election result a Brexit deal that is sympathetic to the unique needs of Northern Ireland remains very much alive.</p>
<p>And, of course, Northern Ireland’s hand in the Brexit negotiations is likely to be strengthened further by the makeup of the next parliament and the precarious position of the Conservative government. Short of a majority, the government could well strike-up an arrangement with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). Those ten DUP MPs – a team of canny and battle-hardened negotiators – would inevitably look to extract a great deal from the Tories in return for their support. Among other things, this shopping list would include a “frictionless” Irish border, as well as no internal UK border (between Britain and Northern Ireland). </p>
<p>The DUP’s election campaign promise was “to make sure Northern Ireland gets the best Brexit deal”. This result goes some way to ensuring that. </p>
<h2>Wales</h2>
<p><strong>Laura McAllister, professor of public policy and the governance of Wales, University of Cardiff</strong></p>
<p>Labour has cemented <a href="http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/general-election-2017-live-updates-13150349">its grip on Wales</a> with three important gains. Voters mainly opted for one of the two main UK-wide parties, with the combined total vote share for Labour and the Conservatives at 84% – the highest since the 1960s.</p>
<p>Labour’s share of the vote increased by 12% points, making something of a mockery of the very early polls, which suggested that the Conservatives would win Wales for the first time since the middle of the 19th century. The Conservative vote was up 6%, but it is seats that count and the party lost three.</p>
<p>Labour still lost the election overall, for the the third time in a row, but once again it won Wales convincingly, underlining the strength of its reach and the depth of its dominance. It was an unmitigated disaster for the Liberal Democrats, which lost their single seat in <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/W07000064">Ceredigon</a> to Plaid Cymru. The Liberal Democrats now have no representation in Wales for the first time in the party’s history.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"873056335369093121"}"></div></p>
<p>Plaid Cyrmu’s overall vote share was down 2% points to 10%, but with four MPs it gained its highest ever number of seats. Despite disappointments in the southern valleys and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/W07000041">Ynys Mon</a>, Leanne Wood’s leadership of the party was probably saved by the bell with the Ceredigon result.</p>
<h2>The Midlands</h2>
<p><strong>Parveen Akhtar, lecturer in political science, Aston University</strong></p>
<p>The Tories had a rough night in the Midlands, and they won’t have been expecting one. Their chances looked very different for them in May, when former John Lewis boss <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/05/former-john-lewis-boss-wins-west-midlands-mayoralty-andy-street">Andy Street</a>, won a stunning victory against Labour’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/15/sion-simon-west-midlands-mayoral-candidate-seeks-to-tell-a-different-labour-story">Siôn Simon</a> to become West Midlands Mayor. On a low turnout of 26.7%, Street won 50.4% against Simon’s 49.6% – hardly a thrashing, but a stunning win nonetheless in traditional Labour territory. </p>
<p>Perfectly logical then that Conservatives should target key marginal seats in Birmingham, birthplace of Nick Timothy, one of the two brains that make up <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexspence/theresa-mays-poor-campaign-has-exposed-her-dependence-on?utm_term=.ehr9B8l7J#.yu0WoPL63">Team May</a>. But in the end, as across the country, the Conservatives’ efforts simply didn’t pay off.</p>
<p>Labour held on to key seats in <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000560">Edgbaston</a>, <a href="http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/general-election-results-northfield-2017-13057432">Northfield</a> and <a href="http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/general-election-2017-erdington-results-13053464">Erdington</a>. In Edgbaston, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40212954">Preet Gill</a> made history by becoming the first female Sikh MP in the UK; she won 24,124 votes, increasing Labour’s 2015 majority by 10%. She takes over from pro-Brexit Labour MP Gisela Stuart, who had held the seat since 1997.</p>
<p>Other big stories from the Midlands include Labour’s capture of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-40211171">Warwick and Leamington</a>, a bellweather constituency where Matt Western won 25,227 votes – a 1,206 majority over the Conservative candidate. The Tories can draw some small consolation from unseating Labour in <a href="http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/general-election-results-walsall-north-13066378">Walsall North</a>; they also retained <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000868">Nuneaton</a> and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000974">Stoke-on-Trent South</a> and comfortably sailed to victory in <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000931">Solihull</a>. But as per the national results, tonight was clearly Labour’s night.</p>
<h2>Vote share</h2>
<p><strong>James Tilley, professor of politics, University of Oxford</strong></p>
<p>Poll leads for the Conservatives ahead of the election varied enormously. Much of the variation, although by no means all, has been due to the way that the pollsters predicted people’s likelihood to turnout.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173084/original/file-20170609-20851-1ov0xl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173084/original/file-20170609-20851-1ov0xl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173084/original/file-20170609-20851-1ov0xl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173084/original/file-20170609-20851-1ov0xl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173084/original/file-20170609-20851-1ov0xl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173084/original/file-20170609-20851-1ov0xl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173084/original/file-20170609-20851-1ov0xl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">How did you vote?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/oscepa/17233690119/sizes/l">oscepa/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The polls with the highest leads for the Conservatives tended to predict low voting rates among younger people and people in working class jobs. We’ve seen this pattern of non-voting for the past few elections, arguably because these groups had become disillusioned with Labour. The polls with the lowest leads for the Conservatives assumed that these two groups would turn out to vote at higher levels than in 2015. The argument here was that Labour under Jeremy Corbyn is a more attractive proposition to more economically left-wing people. So who was right? </p>
<p>Obviously, we won’t know the actual result and we won’t know exact rates of turnout by age and social class for several months until the British Election Survey reports back, but the exit poll does seem to suggest that young people have turned out in larger numbers than at the past few elections.</p>
<p>Generally campaigns are not thought to matter enormously, but this may be the exception that proves the rule. Labour has evidently either converted some people who said they would vote Conservative a few months ago, or mobilised people who said that they wouldn’t vote.</p>
<p>It’s likely that both conversion and particularly mobilisation have been higher among younger voters. While it’s not a successful night for Labour in that it is still predicted to have 50 fewer seats than the Conservatives, at this stage it appears a clear success for the Labour campaign strategy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79169/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Tilley receives funding from the ESRC.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Williams a member of the association of Teachers and Lecturers, the Higher Education Academy and the Labour Party.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Daniel Fitzpatrick receives funding from the ESRC and EPSRC. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Garry is the Principal Investigator on the ESRC funded ‘Northern Ireland Assembly Election Study 2016’ and the Principal Investigator on the ESRC funded ‘The UK/Ireland Border and the Stability of Peace and Security in Northern Ireland’ study focusing on Brexit and Northern Ireland. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Laura McAllister is a board member of the Institute for Welsh Affairs think tank.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Kitson has received funding from BIS, HEFCE, EPSRC, ESRC, AHRC, NERC and the MRC.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Parveen Akhtar is the recipient of British Academy and Economic and Social Research Council research grants.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Murphy owns and directs Tax Research LLP. He has been funded by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, Friends' Provident Foundation, Joffe Trust and others. He has worked for a number of UK trade unions and has been an economic advisor to Jeremy Corbyn.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robin Pettitt is a member of the Women's Equality Party, and a member of Loughton Residents Association. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stuart Wilks-Heeg has previously received funding for research or consultancy on electoral matters from the UK Electoral Commission and the UK Cabinet Office.
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kathryn Simpson, Matthew Cole, Neil Matthews, and William McDougall do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Rolling coverage of the general election results from expert academics.James Tilley, Professor of Politics, University of OxfordBen Williams, Tutor in Politics and Political Theory, University of SalfordDaniel Fitzpatrick, Lecturer in Politics, Aston UniversityJohn Garry, School of History, Anthropology, Philosohy and Politics, Queen's University BelfastKathryn Simpson, Lecturer in Politics and Public Services, Manchester Metropolitan UniversityLaura McAllister, Professor of Public Policy, Cardiff UniversityMatthew Cole, Teaching Fellow, Department of History, University of BirminghamMichael Kitson, University Senior Lecturer in International Macroeconomics, Cambridge Judge Business SchoolNeil Matthews, Lecturer in British Politics, University of BristolParveen Akhtar, Lecturer in Political Science, Aston Centre for Europe, Aston UniversityRichard Murphy, Professor of Practice in International Political Economy, City, University of LondonRobin Pettitt, Senior Lecturer in Comparative Politics, Kingston UniversityStuart Wilks-Heeg, Head of Politics, University of LiverpoolWilliam McDougall, Lecturer in Politics, Glasgow Caledonian UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/621962016-07-07T13:12:26Z2016-07-07T13:12:26ZGrattan on Friday: Coalition gets nasty reminder debt and deficit are important, like it once said<p>The political and fiscal vice in which Malcolm Turnbull is now caught was neatly illustrated by a coincidence of timing in these early post-election days.</p>
<p>One of Turnbull’s first meetings was with Nick Xenophon, whose team has won three senators and one lower house seat. Turnbull was taking out insurance in case the Coalition entered minority government, but Xenophon would have power even if there was a Coalition majority, because his Senate votes will be crucial. The South Australian senator’s agenda is populist and protectionist, and he’ll be in search of trade-offs that cost money.</p>
<p>Just a day after Turnbull met Xenophon, the ratings agency Standard and Poor’s (S&P) revised Australia’s credit outlook from “stable” to “negative”. This wasn’t a downgrading of the AAA rating but a stern warning Australia is on notice.</p>
<p>The agency was blunt, saying “ongoing budget deficits may become incompatible with Australia’s high level of external indebtedness and therefore inconsistent with a ‘AAA’ rating”.</p>
<p>The negative outlook reflected S&P’s view that prospects for budgetary improvement had weakened after the election. There was a one-in-three chance of a downgrading within two years, S&P said; it would monitor over the next six to 12 months the new government’s success or otherwise in passing revenue and expenditure measures through both houses.</p>
<p>The present ugly fiscal reality is a far cry from the Coalition’s rhetoric of three years ago.</p>
<p>The Abbott government arrived promising to attack debt and deficit, then botched things not least because it ignored the need for fairness. It was forced to retreat by the Senate and public opinion and, deeply burned, it pushed budget repair into the far distance.</p>
<p>Now the disastrous election result under Turnbull is likely to impede the fiscal work even further. The government is set to survive but it has been extensively injured. The question is whether it will be crippled.</p>
<p>Turnbull can expect little mercy. S&P is not in the mercy business. Crossbenchers will want to deliver to their voters and exercise bragging rights for whatever they extract. Labor will probably seek to frustrate at every pass.</p>
<p>Some in the government hope the S&P warning might impose a degree of discipline on the Senate. Optimistic, one would think.</p>
<p>Those Liberals looking for comfort in history note that Robert Menzies, after a lashing at the 1961 election off the back of a credit squeeze, operated with a working majority of two. By 1963 he was taking his government to a big election win.</p>
<p>Turnbull, however, doesn’t have certain advantages Menzies enjoyed. Although he’d lost control of the Senate at the election, the upper house was far less difficult in those days; the Liberals were more ideologically united; Labor was riven. Menzies also commanded the authority of being his party’s founder who had led it to more than a decade of consecutive wins.</p>
<p>Turnbull’s dilemma is that the Liberals’ advocacy (if not practice) of budget discipline is out of sync with what’s driven the vote of many electors this time.</p>
<p>Think about getting back those voters, and you see dollar signs. How to reassure people who feared for Medicare? The tempting answer is, change some unpopular measures. That would be a big call, with S&P’s and the other agencies on high alert.</p>
<p>Indeed, the threat hanging over the AAA rating could spark division within the government over whether a new tough round of savings was needed, bringing more electoral pain.</p>
<p>As they continue to reel from their shock, the Liberals are inclined to still fight the election campaign, declaring it will be Labor’s fault if budget savings can’t be got through parliament. But blame-shifting won’t cut it with the public.</p>
<p>John Howard on Thursday had a couple of prescriptions for the government’s situation. He said there needs to be “a return to the reform task” – in taxation, industrial relations and fiscal repair. He also advised unhappy Liberals – that is, disgruntled conservatives – not to leave the party but “stay in and fight”.</p>
<p>Mostly the discontented will stay, and that’s not going to be easy for Turnbull. In the short term, the same-sex marriage plebiscite, even though it was a device to pacify the conservatives, will be extremely testing for him and distracting for the government. At the same time Labor could be emboldened to try in parliament to derail the plebiscite and bring on a parliamentary vote, which could in turn prompt a battle in the Liberals.</p>
<p>As for revisiting the wells of tax and industrial relations reform, Turnbull has no appetite for either. Even if he had, he’s hamstrung by election commitments.</p>
<p>He has said he will re-present the industrial bills that he used as his double dissolution trigger, even though no-one believes the numbers would be there to get them through a joint sitting. Bob Katter, who on Thursday guaranteed supply and confidence to a Turnbull government, had a warning for Turnbull. Katter said he wouldn’t be giving any support to bashing the unions.</p>
<p>After the double dissolution, Turnbull finds Katter is his new best friend – sort of. One of Katter’s own very good friends is the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, which describes him on its Facebook page as a “legend”. The double-dissolution legislation to resurrect the Australian Building and Construction Commission was substantially aimed at the CFMEU. What do they say about degrees of separation?</p>
<iframe src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/tqkry-60d09f?from=yiiadmin" data-link="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/tqkry-60d09f?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe>
<iframe src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/26bqd-60b409?from=yiiadmin" data-link="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/26bqd-60b409?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62196/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The political and fiscal vice in which Malcolm Turnbull is now caught was neatly illustrated by a coincidence of timing in these early post-election days.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/620622016-07-05T11:30:05Z2016-07-05T11:30:05ZTurnbull remains less than pitch-perfect<p>Malcolm Turnbull is struggling to produce the right response in the aftermath of his election debacle.</p>
<p>On Saturday he did not take on any blame and lashed out at Labor’s “Mediscare” tactic. On Tuesday he took “full responsibility” for the campaign and admitted the government had provided some fertile ground for Labor to sow its “outrageous lie” about privatising Medicare.</p>
<p>Tuesday’s performance was a great deal better than Saturday’s, but it was much less than pitch-perfect.</p>
<p>In fact, it risked opening up new difficulties for Turnbull, immediately setting off media speculation that the government, assuming it wins, might retreat on its extended freeze of the Medicare rebate, which has been bitterly opposed by the doctors. It enabled Bill Shorten to reprise the Coalition’s various health imposts.</p>
<p>Turnbull needs to be acknowledging voters’ general disillusionment, and saying the Coalition will listen and look at what responses need to be made. But so soon after the election, when the result isn’t even in sight of being finalised, is hardly the time to be allowing hares to start running on the detail.</p>
<p>It may be that a re-elected Coalition decides to revisit specific health measures. But that would cost a great deal, and should be addressed in a broader budget context, for example at the mid-year update.</p>
<p>One thing Turnbull should do in the short term if he’s forming a new ministry is find a first-rate minister to put into the health portfolio. The present incumbent, Sussan Ley, was kept away from the front line for most of the campaign. When John Howard had a political problem with Medicare he appointed Tony Abbott to the health portfolio; Abbott sorted the issues, though he spent a lot of money in the process.</p>
<p>Apart from generalities and reassurances, ideally Turnbull would be saying little in this hiatus period, when he can’t be sure where the election will end up. But because he is under pressure from Liberals angry with his campaign, as well as being personally discombobulated by the shock rebuff, he now struggles to put out something, anything, as an offering to try to show he is on top of things. If he doesn’t, his internal critics will fill the space, or Shorten will.</p>
<p>Shorten is acting as if the campaign is still on, travelling around thanking supporters, and throwing out fire crackers. On Monday he said Turnbull should resign. On Tuesday he claimed there was a real chance Turnbull was considering a snap election. This was a total fiction – can anybody imagine Turnbull wanting another poll any time soon?</p>
<p>The contrast between the respective demeanours of the two leaders and their respective prospects is stark. On what we know at this point, Turnbull is more likely to be the election victor, in majority or minority government, and Shorten the loser. But you could be forgiven for thinking it was the other way around.</p>
<p>The conservatives in the Liberal Party are punching walls and venting their anger that Turnbull refused to run a more negative campaign. But on Tuesday one of their leaders gave him reassurance that they remain solidly behind his leadership.</p>
<p>Immigration Minister Peter Dutton said he had spoken to “dozens” of colleagues and “there is nobody in the Liberal Party that I’ve spoken to, on the conservative side of the party or otherwise, that believes there should be a change of leader”. Dutton said Turnbull had his full support, and the full support of the cabinet and colleagues.</p>
<p>To have this message, however welcome, delivered by the man he didn’t think should be put on cabinet’s national security committee must be a touch humiliating for Turnbull.</p>
<p>But Turnbull knows that his position is safe for the foreseeable future substantially because there is no alternative. The question is what price the conservatives will try to extract now that he is weakened.</p>
<p>It was Dutton who, during the election campaign, fuelled speculation about the pressure for Abbott to get a cabinet spot when he said “I think some people will push for that”. Post-election, Turnbull has reaffirmed he doesn’t want Abbott on his frontbench.</p>
<p>If he’s forming a new government, will he be in a strong enough position to resist that “push”? And if he does, will that further stir the conservatives?</p>
<p>This not to say Abbott should be put into cabinet – it’s hard to imagine him not causing difficulties. The point is, either way would be trouble for Turnbull.</p>
<p>Finding a line between compromise and capitulation in dealing with the conservatives looks about as hard as convincing the average voter that the Liberals really do love Medicare.</p>
<p><strong>Postscript:</strong> </p>
<p>Post-election polling done for The Australia Institute found people split over whether a hung parliament should be followed by each side trying to negotiate with minor parties and independents to form government, or the holding of another election. Some 47% said negotiate; 46.3% favoured going back to the polls. </p>
<p>Labor voters were more in favour of negotiation than a fresh election, 52.1% -38.5%; Coalition voters opted for a second election, 58.5% to 36.7%. The national poll of 2875 was done on Monday evening.</p>
<iframe src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/26bqd-60b409?from=yiiadmin" data-link="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/26bqd-60b409?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62062/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Malcolm Turnbull is struggling to produce the right response in the aftermath of his election debacle. On Saturday he did not take on any blame and lashed out at Labor’s “Mediscare” tactic. On Tuesday…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/620162016-07-04T12:56:51Z2016-07-04T12:56:51ZThis parliament – hung or unhung – will bring us another continuous election campaign<p>The irony of stridently warning people against voting for minor players and then, all charm, ringing those players when you personally might need their votes may be lost on Malcolm Turnbull. After all, a politician’s skillset includes being able to stand on your head without going red in the face.</p>
<p>As he waits impatiently for the results in the ten outstanding seats, Turnbull doesn’t know whether, if he survives in government, he’d have the slimmest majority (76 of 150 seats) in the House of Representatives, or be coping with a hung parliament. His calls indicate he is planning for the latter while desperately hoping for the former.</p>
<p>Turnbull bunkered down on Monday but Bill Shorten returned to the still-warm campaign trail in western Sydney to flaunt his unexpectedly extensive gains.</p>
<p>There remains a chance he could form a minority Labor government, though it is considered an outside one. Shorten’s call for Turnbull to quit the leadership signalled that a precarious Coalition government would face an energised, aggressive opposition.</p>
<p>Labor’s Anthony Albanese, who confirmed on Monday night he wouldn’t make a leadership run in the automatic spill that comes if Labor remains in opposition, predicted Australians would likely be back at the polls “well before” the end of the three-year term.</p>
<p>What has become in recent years Australia’s continuous election campaign will just intensify after Saturday’s vote.</p>
<p>If Turnbull is to go into minority government he would either have to strike crossbench deals or at least obtain enough backing on the central matters of supply and confidence to allow him to govern.</p>
<p>The lower house crossbenchers will be independents Cathy McGowan and Andrew Wilkie, Bob Katter of Katter’s Australian Party, the Greens’ Adam Bandt, and the Nick Xenophon Team’s (NXT) Rebekha Sharkie. By Monday Turnbull had called all but Bandt. Possibly the crossbench number could be larger – the NXT candidate is in a close race for the South Australia seat of Grey, held by the Liberals.</p>
<p>Wilkie and McGowan shy away from the idea of formal deals with either side. Xenophon is more pragmatic, while the Greens would be eager to power-share with Labor (but the ALP says never ever).</p>
<p>In considering his position, Xenophon would evaluate what he could extract for his policy agenda, as well as considering the question of stability.</p>
<p>Would a minority government be the horror Turnbull painted before the election? Those who argue it wouldn’t point out such governments operate satisfactorily abroad and at state level, and note the Gillard government passed much significant legislation. They observe that having to negotiate on legislation can make for improvements.</p>
<p>But remember a minority Turnbull government would face double jeopardy. Its problems would not be just in the lower house. The Coalition would have an obstacle course in the Senate whether in minority or majority government. Albanese argues the Senate would be easier for a Labor government.</p>
<p>In retrospect, calling a double dissolution, with its small quota for getting elected, was a disastrous decision by Turnbull. The old Senate crossbench was difficult enough – the new one is potentially more so. Among the crossbenchers will be three from NXT and, on ABC election analyst Antony Green’s reckoning, three from Pauline Hanson’s One Nation.</p>
<p>Turnbull, who preaches the values of an inclusive society, has inadvertently not only facilitated the re-entry to parliament of a woman who stands for the very opposite, but likely enabled her to get a significant Senate bloc.</p>
<p>While the Hansonites and NXT are vastly dissimilar in many ways, they are both populist on economic issues, tapping into and articulating community fears about the fallout from market economics and globalisation. This works against the prospect of getting significant economic reforms through the parliament.</p>
<p>A minority government would be especially hostage to having to provide costly benefits. Xenophon is already making more help for Arrium Steel a core demand. </p>
<p>The Western Australian government is complaining it won’t have any chance of a greater slice of the GST revenue because the federal government will have to do a deal with Xenophon, “a South Australian protectionist”, whose state is a beneficiary under the existing distribution.</p>
<p>A well-functioning political system requires checks and balances. In the years when the Howard government controlled the Senate, the mechanisms for scrutiny of administration were lessened, and legislation could be just rammed through. This came back to bite the government when WorkChoices was passed without its harsh edges rubbed off. But if the roadblocks make things unworkable, a government can do little. </p>
<p>Of course the right balance is in the beholder’s eye. The Liberals condemned the Senate’s refusal to pass controversial 2014 budget measures; many voters were relieved.</p>
<p>Whether he has to work in minority government or with the finest of margins, Turnbull – if confirmed in power – will face the toughest period of his political life.</p>
<p>In a hung parliament he would need to have regular “face time” with lower house crossbenchers (Julia Gillard was very good at this). The kettle should always be on. Whether the parliament was hung or not, crossbench senators would require attention by the leader. But Malcolm and Pauline, over tea?</p>
<p>The personal touch is vital – crossbenchers who have power want a prime minister to acknowledge it, including in small ways. They are sensitive to slights and react badly to neglect. Tony Abbott failed to give crossbench senators enough attention, to his cost. Not all this work can be delegated.</p>
<p>At the same time, it would be vital for Turnbull to set limits. If a leader is willing to negotiate virtually everything away, it’s almost as bad as refusing to give anything.</p>
<p>A prime minister has the ultimate whiphand – calling an election. In a hung parliament the crossbench can withdraw support and force the government to the polls. The stakes are extraordinarily high all round.</p>
<p>Turnbull gave the Senate crossbenchers an ultimatum: pass the industrial relations legislation or face the people. They called his bluff and it didn’t end well, for him or those of them who lost their seats. The legislation is no nearer being passed after the double dissolution – the government doesn’t have the numbers to get it through a joint sitting.</p>
<p>Facing a hung parliament Turnbull would be juggling a bunch of crossbenchers while trying to cope with the critics in his own party, who will become more emboldened and strident. Members of the right, seeing him wounded, will want to get their way at every opportunity. They too would have to be stared down on occasion. Turnbull already has had to trade away much of his political persona – go much further and he becomes a hollow man.</p>
<p>Is Turnbull up to what he will face if his government survives? One senior colleague believes so. “I think it will be the making of him. He’ll become more conciliatory.” Other people doubt his temperament for it.</p>
<p>But Turnbull would have one big reason to try to make it work. His political reputation, at this moment, is trashed. He wouldn’t want that to be the way he goes down in Australian prime ministerial history.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62016/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The irony of stridently warning people against voting for minor players and then, all charm, ringing those players when you personally might need their votes may be lost on Malcolm Turnbull.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/619692016-07-03T10:18:32Z2016-07-03T10:18:32ZLabor leadership talk a bit of mischievous arson<p>In an election full of drama, it is still remarkable that media speculation on Sunday was not about whether Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership might be shaky, but the possibility of a challenge to Bill Shorten.</p>
<p>One reason, perhaps, is that while some Liberals would like Turnbull replaced there’s no immediate alternative except Tony Abbott – and that would be a bad joke.</p>
<p>In Labor it’s different. It’s hardly a secret that Anthony Albanese, who ran unsuccessfully in 2013, hankers for the leadership. He was carefully positioned in the last term when there was speculation Shorten might be removed. He has been match-fit in the event Shorten did poorly on Saturday.
But Shorten much exceeded expectations, and the result, hovering between a hung parliament and a small Turnbull majority, is very much better for Labor than even its senior figures anticipated.</p>
<p>Obviously if the parliament came in hung and Shorten proved the more effective suitor of the crossbenchers, that would be the end of leadership talk. But even if Turnbull emerged the winner, in a majority or a minority Coalition government, why – given Shorten’s achievement – would a challenge even be thought about?</p>
<p>First, because under the party rules the leadership, in which caucus and rank-and-file have a 50-50 say, is thrown open automatically after a Labor loss. </p>
<p>Second, now the leadership is a real prize. With a minority Turnbull government or one with a wafer-thin majority anything could happen anytime.</p>
<p>The Shorten-faces-challenge kite was deliberately flown in the media after Saturday’s election. It was mischief, but produced a sharp reaction from Labor figures. With the possibility of a minority Shorten government still live, it looked like gross disloyalty – undermining Shorten if things got to the point of his negotiating with the crossbenchers.</p>
<p>If the result went the Liberals’ way, any move against Shorten would still appear expedient and be divisive. Asked about the speculation, Shorten could mean what he said on Sunday: “I have never been more certain of my position.”</p>
<p>The Shorten camp would have liked Albanese to have quashed the chatter immediately. He hasn’t done that. But a well-placed senior source said: “I’d expect Bill to be unopposed”. Another said Albanese would be “crazy” to put his name forward. “Amongst the rank-and-file Shorten is a hero today.”</p>
<p>When we think back to the lows of Shorten’s leadership during the last term – his ordeal before the trade union royal commission, his roc- bottom approval when Turnbull’s was soaring – how far he’s come is all the more impressive.</p>
<p>Under his big-target strategy he had Labor on the front foot with bold policies. In the campaign he mostly looked better on the hustings than Turnbull.</p>
<p>But, nevertheless, there were question marks over Shorten’s campaign – not ones of day-to-day performance but the strategic decisions. Not the Medicare scare – an example of ruthlessly effective expediency – but the big spending program, and the decision to have deficits over the forward estimates larger than the Coalition’s.</p>
<p>Labor would be foolish to allow its strong result to convince it that it doesn’t need to do some hard thinking about the appropriateness of its economic approach.</p>
<p>Shorten’s position if he remains in opposition is as safe as houses. But the story of modern Australian political leaders is that you have to keep proving yourself. There is little patience when those polls slip. Shorten is fortunate in that Turnbull and the Coalition, if in government, would be in a dire position. The Liberals are deeply divided, ideologically and over Turnbull himself. Turnbull downplays ideology while those on the right want to accentuate it.</p>
<p>If Labor remains in opposition, the warmth of relative success will engulf Shorten for some time as Turnbull suffers and struggles. But inevitably the spotlight would come back sharply on to Shorten. Labor’s rules make revisiting the leadership during the term difficult but not impossible.</p>
<p>In a strange way, bringing his party so close to victory, while giving short-term protection, would build in longer-term vulnerability because the stakes become so high. To stay safe Shorten would need to have his eyes on the next campaign and what would be appropriate for that. He once more would have to get out in front of the game.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61969/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In an election full of drama, it is still remarkable that media speculation on Sunday was not about whether Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership might be shaky but the possibility of a challenge to Bill Shorten.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/619682016-07-03T06:44:51Z2016-07-03T06:44:51ZTurnbull stands solid against returning Abbott to frontbench<p>Malcolm Turnbull has slapped down the prospect of Tony Abbott returning to the ministry, as both he and Bill Shorten talk to crossbenchers who could determine their fate in a hung parliament.</p>
<p>“I am not proposing to bring back any particular individuals,” Turnbull told a news conference when asked about the pressure to put Abbott on the frontbench.</p>
<p>His hard line will further anger conservatives in his party, who are already starting to flex their muscles after the election debacle. The push for Abbott’s post-election return began during the campaign. But the belief in Turnbull quarters is that Abbott is toxic in the electorate.</p>
<p>Abbott kept his comments on Sunday careful, though they were pointed. Asked whether he would have won if he had been leader, he said: “I just won’t speculate on that. That is for people to reflect upon.”</p>
<p>He said there were “a lot of people who have got much to reflect upon as a result of what has happened”.</p>
<p>“It is not for me to start trying to sum up a long and difficult campaign,” he said. </p>
<p>“All we can do today is take stock, think, reflect, rather than just come out with a whole lot of snap judgements. I certainly won’t come out with snap judgements.”</p>
<p>Conservative senator Cory Bernardi said the election had been “a disaster for the Liberal Party. It shows that treating our base with contempt or dismissing their concerns in favour of Labor-lite policy has very real consequences.</p>
<p>"The conservative revolution will either begin within the Liberal Party in an attempt to save it, or will manifest itself outside the Liberal Party,” Bernardi said. There had been a small taste of the latter on Saturday, he said. </p>
<p>Turnbull continued to say he was “quietly confident” the Coalition would reach a majority in its own right. Turnbull said the postal and other votes still to be counted were likely to favour the Coalition.</p>
<p>Despite Turnbull’s prediction, a hung parliament is equally likely, with about a dozen seats in doubt.</p>
<p>Turnbull and Shorten confirmed they had spoken to some of the lower house crossbenchers, as each leader is anxious to open lines of communication in the event of a hung parliament.</p>
<p>Turnbull spoke to independents Andrew Wilkie and Cathy McGowan and to Nick Xenophon, leader of the Nick Xenophon Team (NXT). The NXT has won three Senate seats in South Australia and one lower house seat.</p>
<p>Xenophon said a hung parliament was “increasingly likely”, but would not say which side his team would favour. “We will support the side that can form a stable government and that can listen to us in respect of key concerns which we think reflect the wishes of middle Australia.”</p>
<p>The NXT is also in the hunt for the SA Liberal seat of Grey which Xenophon described as being on a “knife-edge”.</p>
<p>Shorten dismissed speculation in Labor circles that he could face a leadership challenge from Anthony Albanese. The leadership is automatically open after a defeat. “For myself, I have never been more certain of my leadership,” he said.</p>
<p>Both leaders played down the possibility of another election. </p>
<p>Saying he had spoken to some crossbenchers, Shorten said: “They want to be constructive, they don’t want Australia rushing back to the polls, I certainly don’t. I think we owe it to the Australian people to make the decision of the Australian people work.”</p>
<p>Turnbull said: “We are committed to ensuring that the parliament, as elected, will work effectively and constructively for the Australian people.”</p>
<p>Turnbull sought to reassure people ahead of the hiatus before a definite result is known.</p>
<p>“While the count will take a number of days, probably until the end of next week, I can promise all Australians that we will dedicate our efforts to ensuring that the state of the new parliament is resolved without division or rancour. The expectation is on all of us, especially me as prime minister, to get on with the job.”</p>
<p>When the count was completed the Coalition would work constructively “to ensure that we have a strong majority government and we will work across the crossbenchers as well, if we need to do so”, Turnbull said.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61968/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Malcolm Turnbull has slapped down the prospect of Tony Abbott returning to the ministry, as both he and Bill Shorten talk to crossbenchers who could determine their fate in a hung parliament.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/618472016-07-03T03:50:29Z2016-07-03T03:50:29ZExplainer: why don’t we know who won the election and what happens now?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/129087/original/image-20160703-18328-idffb8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Labor's better-than-expected performance has left a lot of seats still too close to call.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>After one of the longest election campaigns in Australian history, a winner is yet to be decided.</p>
<p>As Australia is based on <a href="http://australianpolitics.com/democracy/key-terms/westminster-system">the Westminster system</a>, government is formed by the party (or coalition of parties) that wins a majority of seats in the House of Representatives, also known as the lower house. The leader of this majority becomes prime minister.</p>
<p>There are 150 seats in this chamber, so a majority needed to form government is 76 seats. This is the magic number that the Labor Party and Liberal/National Coalition will be striving for over the coming days.</p>
<h2>The house of government</h2>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/infographic-what-we-know-so-far-about-the-results-of-election-2016-61522">As it currently stands</a>, neither major party can yet claim 76 seats. With many seats too close to call, pre-poll and postal votes (which will be counted over the coming days) will decide who is in the best position to form government.</p>
<p>If an effective campaign was run by incumbent MPs, the postal votes should favour them. Pre-polls, on the other hand, would reflect the broader trends of the electorate – so, in this case, that means the votes would be very tight on a two-party preferred basis. In such a close race, the favourite would be the candidate who was in the lead before counting postal and pre-poll votes.</p>
<p>As of today, the prospect of Australia having a <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-a-hung-parliament-and-how-will-a-government-be-formed-61963">hung parliament</a> is quite real. It means that neither major party can form a government in their own right and will depend on minor parties and independents to cobble together a majority in the lower house. If this was to occur, Australia will have its <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-09-08/labors-minority-government-explained/2253236">second minority government since 2010</a>.</p>
<p>Like a grand final ending in a draw, minority governments in Australia are unlikely but may occur. The Australian electoral system amplifies majorities, so governments may win with a small percentage of the vote but will usually have a comfortable working majority. For example, in 2013, the Coalition won 53.5% of the two-party-preferred vote, but won 60% of the seats in the lower house. </p>
<p>It’s a system that is ultimately geared towards manufacturing governments with clear majorities. But when the two-party-preferred vote is so close, as it is at the moment with the Coalition on 50.1% and Labor on 49.9%, a situation where neither party can win majority is a real possibility. </p>
<p>The 2016 result is very similar to that of the 2010 election. Back then, however, it was Labor with the slightly higher two-party-preferred vote.</p>
<h2>What do we know about the new Senate?</h2>
<p>The Senate has almost the same powers as the House of Representatives, so its composition also has implications for policy outcomes.</p>
<p>As this was a double-dissolution election, all Senate seats were up for election. This means that, unlike in a general election where six of the 12 seats from each state are up for grabs, all 12 were contested.</p>
<p>This in turn means the quota – which is the percentage of the vote needed to win a seat – was halved, making it easier for independents and minor parties to win representation. <a href="http://www.onenation.com.au/index.html">Pauline Hanson</a> and <a href="http://www.justiceparty.com.au/">Derryn Hinch</a> appear set to win seats. Prominent South Australian senator Nick Xenophon, and others from his <a href="https://nxt.org.au/">Nick Xenophon Team</a>, and the <a href="http://www.cdp.org.au/">Christian Democratic Party</a> are also looking like certainties in the new Senate.</p>
<p>In this election, <a href="https://theconversation.com/senate-voting-changes-pass-so-how-do-we-elect-the-upper-house-now-55641">a new system of voting</a> was used to elect senators. Unlike previous elections, preference wheeling-and-dealing between parties would not have the same impact. Candidates would have to win a large primary vote to stand any chance of victory. This appears to have occurred.</p>
<h2>What happens next?</h2>
<p>Following an episode in 2013 in which where <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2013/November/The_disputed_2013_WA_Senate_election">some ballot papers were misplaced</a> in Western Australia, ballot security has been <a href="http://www.aec.gov.au/media/media-releases/2013/12-06a.htm">bolstered</a>.</p>
<p>As a result, counting of the votes will be undertaken in more secure settings, which will mean further delays in deciding close contests. Indeed, counting will recommence on Tuesday and it is expected that results won’t be any clearer until later this week. Counting for the Senate will continue over the coming weeks.</p>
<p>In terms of governance, the public service will continue to administer the policies that were in place prior to the election. New policies cannot be implemented and will have to wait until a new government is sworn in. The provision of government services will not be affected by the delay in the formation of a new government and will continue as usual.</p>
<p>Australian voters have once again decided that neither major party can form government on election night. Results in seats that are too close to call at present may decide who governs.</p>
<p>If neither party can get to 76 seats on their own, they will have to negotiate with the crossbenchers to manufacture a majority. The Australian system can accommodate this, as seen during the Gillard government years. Getting to that point, however, will take many more days and a lot more counting.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61847/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Zareh Ghazarian does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It may be several days, or even longer, before we know the shape of our next government, but the business of government will carry on as usual.Zareh Ghazarian, Lecturer, School of Social Sciences, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/619632016-07-03T03:40:00Z2016-07-03T03:40:00ZExplainer: what is a ‘hung parliament’, and how will a government be formed?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/129084/original/image-20160703-18334-1qi9aq1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Talk has now turned to whether Australia will again have a minority government and a 'hung parliament'.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Tracey Nearmy</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Neither Malcolm Turnbull nor Bill Shorten was able to claim victory on election night. With <a href="https://theconversation.com/major-rebuff-to-malcolm-turnbull-as-poll-result-hovers-on-knife-edge-61960">uncertainty</a> surrounding whether either party will be able to secure a majority of lower house seats, talk has now turned to whether Australia will again have a minority government and a “hung parliament”.</p>
<p>So, what is a hung parliament? And what is the procedure for determining who will form the next government?</p>
<h2>What is a hung parliament?</h2>
<p>The party (or coalition of parties) that has a majority in the House of Representatives forms the government. </p>
<p>There are 150 seats in the House of Representatives. To form government in their own right, the Liberal/National Coalition or Labor requires 76 seats. If neither can form government in their own right, we have a “hung parliament”.</p>
<p>There is nothing in the Constitution to deal with the situation in which neither side can form a majority government. Instead, these matters are resolved by “conventions”. These conventions are the unwritten rules, practices and procedures that Australia inherited from the United Kingdom, upon which our system of government <a href="http://australianpolitics.com/democracy/key-terms/westminster-system">is based</a>.</p>
<h2>Forming a minority government</h2>
<p>If neither side has a clear majority, a minority government might be able to be formed with the support of minor party and independent MPs. </p>
<p>For this to occur, one side would need enough minor party and independent MPs to agree to vote with it to ensure the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2016/April/SupplyBills">budget supply bills</a> can be passed, and to support the minority government in a vote of no-confidence. This was what happened after the 2010 election, when the Gillard government received the support of Greens MP Adam Bandt and three independents to form a minority government. </p>
<p>While a hung parliament might seem like a relatively common phenomenon in recent times, historically they are more unusual. The 2010 election result was the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook43p/hungparliament">first hung parliament</a> since 1940.</p>
<p>If Turnbull ends up falling short of a majority but receives the support of enough minor party and independent MPs to form a minority government, he would inform the governor-general that he believes he has the confidence of a majority of the house and would seek to remain prime minister. </p>
<p>If Shorten were able to gather the support of the minor party and independent MPs, then Turnbull would need to resign and advise the governor-general to swear in Shorten as prime minister.</p>
<p>If it’s unclear which side has the support of the majority of the House of Representatives, the governor-general would in all likelihood allow the incumbent prime minister – in this case Turnbull – to remain in the position and to test whether he has the confidence of the house, on the floor of the parliament. </p>
<p>If there was a successful vote of no-confidence against Turnbull, he would then need to resign, and the governor-general might then swear in Shorten as prime minister.</p>
<h2>Does a minority government mean parliament will grind to a halt?</h2>
<p>While a hung parliament does mean a minority government will need to negotiate with independents or minor parties to pass its legislation though the House of Representatives, it does not necessarily mean it will be prevented from governing. </p>
<p>The Gillard minority government, for example, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jun/28/australia-productive-prime-minister">passed more legislation</a> in its first 700 days than the Abbott government did in the same period.</p>
<p>Perhaps this reminds us that the challenge for any government – whether it holds a majority in the House or Representatives or not – is still going to be getting legislation through the Senate.</p>
<h2>What effect will this have on a joint sitting?</h2>
<p>After a double-dissolution election, if the Senate again rejects the bills that were <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-explainer-what-does-it-mean-that-were-having-a-double-dissolution-election-56671">used as a “trigger”</a> for the election, the government can ask the governor-general to <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/%7E/link.aspx?_id=AFF6CA564BC3465AA325E73053DED4AA&_z=z#chapter-01_part-05_57">convene a joint sitting</a> of the House of Representatives and the Senate to consider that legislation.</p>
<p>With the election result being so close, the chances of a joint sitting now seem less likely. </p>
<p>Even if the Turnbull government is returned with a slim majority in the House of Representatives, it may not be enough to give it a majority in a joint sitting of both houses if there are a large number of crossbench senators, <a href="https://theconversation.com/after-messy-night-coalition-more-likely-to-form-government-but-pauline-hanson-is-in-the-senate-61207">as appears likely</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61963/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adam Webster does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There is nothing in the Constitution to deal with the situation in which neither side can form a majority government.Adam Webster, Lecturer, Adelaide Law School, University of AdelaideLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/616462016-06-28T02:29:05Z2016-06-28T02:29:05ZThe voter paradox: we say we don’t want a minority government, but we’re happy to vote for one<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/128422/original/image-20160628-28354-2vxnci.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">With voters increasingly disillusioned with the two major parties, microparties such as those led by Jacqui Lambie and Nick Xenophon will play a bigger role.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the last few weeks of this longest of election campaigns the conversation has turned to the question of certainty. </p>
<p>The prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has been arguing strongly that the Coalition should be re-elected to provide the country with continuity (albeit with change). His call was given additional impetus following the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/25/upshot/how-brexit-will-affect-the-global-economy-now-and-later.html?_r=0">economic doubt produced by the Brexit vote</a> in the UK. </p>
<p>Warning voters against a hung parliament, Turnbull used the Liberal Party launch to describe the prospect of a minority government <a href="http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/federal-election/malcolm-turnbull-used-partys-election-launch-to-urge-australians-not-to-vote-for-minor-parties/news-story/b2db1e05d8d96cf79678a3aa98dcfb91">as parliamentary “chaos”</a>. It’s a term he has used on a number of occasions. </p>
<p>This is something both sides of politics seem to agree on. Bill Shorten recently evaded a question from <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2016/s4488065.htm">ABC 7.30</a> host Leigh Sales about the prospect of forming a minority government with the Greens’ support. Employing a little magical thinking, Shorten argued:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There’s a third option: a Labor Party in government, governing for all Australians.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Developing this theme, Labor wheeled out Paul Keating on the weekend to pummel the Greens in the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/paul-keating-launches-withering-attack-on-pathetic-greens-20160625-gprqr1.html">hotly contested seat of Grayndler</a>, one of a number of inner-city seats the Greens have set their sights on winning. Similarly, Shorten has warned South Australians <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/federal-election-2016/federal-election-2016-shorten-lets-fly-at-nxt-ragtag-militia/news-story/c012495f8d805ad9344ab13303cca2c0">against voting for the Nick Xenophon Team</a>, describing the new party that is savaging Labor in that state as a “ragtag militia”. </p>
<p>The driving force behind these shared talking points is two-fold. The first is the growing sense that participation is a privilege enjoyed by only the two established party groupings in Australia, so the only way to get into parliament is through the two-party system.</p>
<p>This “cartel” view of politics is demonstrated by the way in which the major parties have adjusted the electoral system over many decades to suit their own interests. These changes include maintaining the requirement of a minimum vote before candidates can access public election funding, and recent Senate reforms. The later changes to the regulation of parties will not be fully felt for several years, when the higher regulatory bar on microparties comes into play.</p>
<p>The second is the way the Australian public perceives the prospect of minority government. It has been argued that this is a comparatively new phenomenon. Certainly, under the leadership of Tony Abbott, the Coalition worked hard to <a href="http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p309171/pdf/ch011.pdf">frame minority governments</a> as an inherently bad electoral outcome.</p>
<p>But if we look at survey data from the <a href="http://politicsir.cass.anu.edu.au/research/projects/electoral-surveys/australian-election-study/aes-2013">ANU’s Australian Election Study</a> in the table below, we can see that respondents were significantly less likely to prefer a minority government in the weeks immediately following the 2010 election (when the survey is administered and data collected from the public). </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/128239/original/image-20160627-28362-mo3idc.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/128239/original/image-20160627-28362-mo3idc.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=285&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128239/original/image-20160627-28362-mo3idc.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=285&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128239/original/image-20160627-28362-mo3idc.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=285&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128239/original/image-20160627-28362-mo3idc.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128239/original/image-20160627-28362-mo3idc.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128239/original/image-20160627-28362-mo3idc.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Calculated from McAllister and Cameron (2014)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So, the argument that experience with the minority Gillard and Rudd governments of 2010-13 period directly <em>produced</em> this aversion to hung parliaments is not strictly correct. In fact it predated our recent experience.</p>
<p>While the 2016 election may just go to the Coalition on the back of preferences and the ground game in a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jun/27/national-and-electorate-polling-suggests-coalition-victory-but-not-by-much">small number of marginal seats</a>, minority government and Senate independents will emerge as features of Australian public life.</p>
<p>The problem for the parties is that the public engages in seemingly perverse behaviour: they don’t want a minority government, but they are happy to vote for it. </p>
<p>In many ways this shows how terrible elections are at signally policy preferences from the electorate. A vote for a minor or microparty often represents <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-27/vote-compass-top-20-seats-at-odds/7536438">a lack of consensus on policy</a>, rather than a preference for government by coalition or minority.</p>
<p>For all the attempts to eliminate minor and microparties from the political landscape, the trend over the past 50 years has been of voters preferencing minor parties over the established parties. In 2013, one-third of voters preferred a minor party for the Senate. One in five opted for them in the lower house, with the <a href="http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2013/11/record-vote-for-minor-parties-at-2013-federal-election.html">trend line pointing upwards</a>. </p>
<p>Other Westminster nations manage to deal with elections that generate uncertain outcomes. New Zealand is a good example of a comparable country whose electoral system requires a period of extended negotiation with minor parties to form government after an election. This means accepting the possibility of uncertainty: of electoral outcome, but also of conditions that may require parties to change their policies. </p>
<p>Elections are important in setting the stage for policy negotiations that form government. The outcome is uncertain, but it provides the spectacle of actual policy debates conducted before the public. While the Coalition likes to position the Labor Party as conflicted by the rise of the Greens, the prospect of a centrist party or one to the right of the Coalition in Australia is stronger than ever.</p>
<p>Magical thinking aside, the major parties will face the need to negotiate “confidence and supply” agreements with minor parties to form government in the future. That means they will need to prepare the electorate in advance for a lack of certainty. </p>
<p>While there is clearly a tactical advantage in warning against uncertainty, the electorate will need to be educated that the end of an election campaign can be the start of something greater.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61646/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter John Chen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Whatever the outcome of this election, hung parliaments and minority governments will increasingly be a feature of the Australian political landscape.Peter John Chen, Senior Lecturer, Department of Government and International Relations, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/594722016-05-18T19:44:42Z2016-05-18T19:44:42ZSeats on the line as Labor and the Greens do a difficult preference dance<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122931/original/image-20160518-9509-ktujll.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Greens leader Richard Di Natale (right) and Greens candidate for Grayndler Jim Casey are eyeing off the inner-Sydney seat.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Paul Miller</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Before the 2007 election, Kevin Rudd vowed to <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/mind-game-delivers-a-win-for-pm-20090625-cy56.html">“mess” with John Howard’s mind</a>. He did and it worked.</p>
<p>Now, the government is trying to repeat the trick with Bill Shorten, and the Greens are their handmaidens. Talk of preference deals is the Coalition’s chief weapon, but so is Labor division over border protection, propaganda about a Labor-Green coalition, and Green opportunism on penalty rates.</p>
<p>At immediate risk for Labor are a number of inner-city seats, especially in Melbourne. The danger for the Greens are unintended consequences flowing from their flirtation with preference deals with the Coalition. It might just work too well, not merely damaging Labor, but also reducing the Greens’ overall influence and impact in the next parliament.</p>
<p>The Greens hold the seat of Melbourne courtesy of Liberal preferences in 2010 and incumbency at the last election. The Labor seats of <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2016/guide/batm/">Batman</a> and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2016/guide/will/">Wills</a>, where Labor’s vote fell below 50% at the 2013 election, are at serious risk of following the same pattern on July 2 if the Liberals direct preferences to the Greens.</p>
<p>According to ABC psephologist Antony Green, the Greens could not win either seat without Liberal preferences – unless their primary vote overtakes Labor’s.</p>
<p>That is possible, but unlikely. It is even less likely in another seat being targeted by the Greens – the electorate of <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2016/guide/gray/">Grayndler</a> in Sydney, held by Labor’s Anthony Albanese. His primary vote was in the high 40s in 2013 and the Greens were outpolled by the Liberals.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2016/guide/mpor/">Melbourne Ports</a> is another interesting but different case. Labor’s Michael Danby was outpolled by the Liberals at the last election, but retained the seat on the back of Green preferences. According to Green, a 6% switch in primary votes between Labor and the Greens would see the seat fall to the Greens – or the Liberals, depending on who preferences whom.</p>
<p>Just to be clear, no Liberal seats are at risk. The Coalition gains by putting Labor under pressure in seats it has held for decades, in some cases since federation. Liberal preferences would hand Batman and Wills to the Greens.</p>
<p>According to Liberal strategists, the threat to Labor in those two seats is already forcing them to commit hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend a pair of electorates it could once take for granted. That means less money to spend on seats Labor needs to win if it is to return to government.</p>
<p>This is already an uphill task, given that Labor needs to gain 20 seats nationwide to topple a first-term government – a feat not achieved federally since 1931. Given the current state of the polls, the best Labor can expect is another hung parliament. But that prospect creates tactical problems for Shorten, not the Coalition.</p>
<p>First, it would mean that whoever emerged as prime minister would have to assure the governor-general that he had the confidence of the House of Representatives. Shorten has recoiled from the Greens’ suggestions of another alliance, like that negotiated by Julia Gillard, like Dracula from a stake.</p>
<p>However, talk of any kind of agreement to guarantee passage of money bills is sufficient for the Coalition to raise the spectre of the last hung parliament with the memory of Gillard and Bob Brown joined at the hip, surrounded by rancour and dysfunction.</p>
<p>Second, it makes Labor look more left-wing than Shorten would like, as does mere talk of Labor being dependent on Green preferences to hold Batman, Wills and Grayndler among others.</p>
<p>The votes Shorten needs to attract are in the centre, winning primary votes at the expense of the Coalition. He cannot win more votes on the left. The less centrist his appeal, the fewer votes he will win from the government.</p>
<p>Shorten is caught in a vice between Liberal claims that he is beholden to the Greens and Green suggestions that Labor has lost its moral compass. On that score, the Coalition has now produced dirt sheets on at least seven Labor candidates, quoting past statements opposing turnbacks and offshore processing of asylum seekers. Undoubtedly, we have not heard the end of this.</p>
<p>The government argues this shows what Labor really thinks; that a Shorten prime ministership would again see boatloads of asylum seekers making it to Australian waters. For Greens voters, it is a daily reminder of Labor’s lack of compassion.</p>
<p>It is a similar story with the Greens’ opportunism on weekend penalty rates. Shorten is pointing out, quite reasonably, that legislating for double time on Sundays – as Greens leader Richard Di Natale is proposing – could quite readily be undone by a Coalition government.</p>
<p>On the other hand Shorten is committing a Labor government to a submission to Fair Work Australia in support of maintaining penalty rates. That ought to have considerable influence over whatever decision the independent commission makes.</p>
<p>The Greens, however, depict themselves as the only friends the workers have left, and portray Shorten as betraying his union roots. Another win for the Coalition.</p>
<p>For all that, it is just possible that the Greens could play this game too successfully.</p>
<p>Changes to the Senate voting arrangements mean they will lose one or possibly two of their ten seats. On the other hand, rightist independent Nick Xenophon might just win four seats in South Australia. Family First’s Bob Day might retain his seat, as might the Liberal Democrats’ David Leyonhjelm. That would give the crossbench a more conservative tinge, reducing the power of the Greens.</p>
<p>In the lower house, competition with Labor might produce more Green MPs. But downward pressure on Labor’s vote nationally might ensure the Coalition’s majority.</p>
<p>In short, it could mean greater numbers for the Greens in the lower house, but less influence and fewer senators. This would in turn mean the continuation of Tony Abbott’s climate-change policy and pressure from the business community for further industrial relations changes, not just the abolition of penalty rates.</p>
<p>Careful what you wish for.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59472/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jim Middleton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>With the election result almost certain to be close, preferencing will play a key role, leaving the progressive parties in particular in a difficult bind.Jim Middleton, Vice Chancellor's Fellow, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/594702016-05-16T06:23:00Z2016-05-16T06:23:00ZElection podcast: the battle for New England<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122672/original/image-20160516-15904-1nb52zp.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Vikki Campion/Office of Barnaby Joyce</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>This is The Conversation’s first election podcast, where we visit the New South Wales seat of New England. The electorate is held by deputy prime minister and Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce, who is under challenge from former independent member Tony Windsor.</p>
<p>Joyce predicts the government will “take a haircut” at the election, and talks about New England becoming a net exporter of renewable energy in future years. Windsor says if there was a hung parliament he would not go into an alliance, as he did with the Gillard government, and is coy about where his vote would end up.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59470/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>This is The Conversation’s first election podcast, where we visit the NSW seat of New England.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/593202016-05-12T20:06:03Z2016-05-12T20:06:03ZGrattan on Friday: Turnbull and Shorten play to voters who are yet to engage<p>Resembling a rough game of ice hockey, the 2016 campaign already has seen slips, slides and own goals. Neither side has scored a big breakthrough.</p>
<p>Bill Shorten – who must win the campaign itself for victory in the election – has been undermined by trouble with candidates’ stands on asylum seekers. On another front, Chris Brown from the Maritime Union was dumped as the ALP candidate for Fremantle after failing to disclose old convictions, prompting an angry reaction from the union.</p>
<p>Malcolm Turnbull has had to deal with claims the budget’s superannuation reform is retrospective, echoes of the September leadership coup, and being named (without a suggestion of wrongdoing) in the Panama Papers.</p>
<p>Each side is defending its policy pitch – the growth boost from the government’s company tax cut, and the economic benefit from Labor’s plan to pump large-scale funding into schools.</p>
<p>The Greens have been centre-stage for much of the first week. How great a threat are they to Labor seats? Will they get Liberal preferences? And if there were a minority Labor government, what would be its relationship with them?</p>
<p>Demonising the Greens is de rigueur for both sides in campaigns now the minor party has become a force.</p>
<p>Labor is under pressure from two directions, with Liberal claims it would be back in bed with the Greens in a flash, and with the Greens’ encroachment on some of Labor’s seats.</p>
<p>Conjuring up the spectre of the Gillard days, the government warns of a Labor-Greens “coalition” or “alliance” and “Adam Bandt [expected to be re-elected in Melbourne] as the deputy treasurer of the country under a Labor/Greens government”.</p>
<p>Shorten is emphatic there would be no deal of any sort with the Greens.</p>
<p>It’s worth getting a few things clear here, as terms are being thrown around randomly to scare.</p>
<p>A “coalition” is what the Liberals and Nationals have – two parties in a government. An “alliance” is what Julia Gillard had with the Greens when she was in minority government – a formal deal under which both parties agree on certain things, which included, in that case, a role for the Greens in the formulation of the carbon policy.</p>
<p>A formal deal is a security blanket for a minority government, and a way for a small party to leverage its power. Greens leader Richard Di Natale is anxious to play the Greens in, if there happened to be a minority Labor government.</p>
<p>“What we should have is a sensible, responsible, mature negotiation … if it is a close election and there is a possibility of a power-sharing arrangement. I want to make sure that Bill Shorten is going to commit to undertaking that negotiation rather than simply sending Australia back to the polls for a second election,” Di Natale said, resorting to a bit of scare himself.</p>
<p>But if Labor were in minority government and needed Greens support, there would be no need for an alliance or “power-sharing”. It would just have to avoid being defeated in a no-confidence vote in the House of Representatives. And think of it this way: would the Greens really want to bring down a Labor government, and install or risk the alternative?</p>
<p>This is Di Natale’s first campaign as leader and he’s relishing the attention the Greens are receiving. Unlike Labor, which is fearful of talk about past links, Di Natale happily recalls what his party got out of the Gillard alliance. The problems of those days were not from that, but from Labor’s internal divisions, he says.</p>
<p>Negative campaigning is seen as very effective, and the government has struck pay dirt with the differences in Labor over the electorally potent issue of border security.</p>
<p>Labor sees the issue – on which Shorten firmly held the line this week – as an irritant at this stage but with the potential to become very serious if not contained.</p>
<p>Again, it’s important to insert a reality check on Liberal claims that a Labor government would lose control of the borders. Shorten can be believed when he says he is committed to a tough policy. Having been through the consequences of going soft, a Labor government wouldn’t want a repeat.</p>
<p>The area where it might make some compromise is the future of the people on Nauru and Manus Island. But a re-elected Turnbull government might do that too.</p>
<p>It is true many in Labor’s left don’t support the Shorten policy on turnbacks. But the left leadership is locked into it, following last year’s ALP national conference decision. And if Labor were in power the left generally would not have the numbers or clout to change it.</p>
<p>How much of what’s happened in the campaign so far has penetrated the consciousness of the public is a moot point. Reports from both government and opposition suggest people are bored, disengaged and dreading being subjected to a further 49 days. </p>
<p>No matter. As one insider observed, this can be seen as a training week for the two leaders. They don’t really need an audience yet.</p>
<iframe src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/3b489-5f1958?from=yiiadmin" data-link="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/3b489-5f1958?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59320/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Resembling a rough game of ice hockey, the 2016 campaign already has seen slips, slides and own goals. Neither side has scored a big breakthrough.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/591732016-05-11T03:21:14Z2016-05-11T03:21:14ZWhy Shorten wants to kill off spectre of Labor-Greens deal in a hung parliament<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122015/original/image-20160511-29544-7g2hqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Bill Shorten has spent the last two-and-a-half years trying to shed memories of the dysfunction of the Rudd-Gillard years.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The election is still nearly two months away, making prediction precarious. However, there are some certainties. And these help explain the thermonuclear war that has broken out between Labor and the Greens over the possibility that the Liberals might <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-10/malcolm-turnbull-bill-shorten-back-away-from-greens-deal/7399930">preference the Greens</a> in some marginal seats.</p>
<p>Such a deal would have serious implications for Labor. And it would present a real opportunity for the Coalition to lock in its chances of securing majority government.</p>
<h2>Numbers and preferences</h2>
<p>The Greens in 2010 seized the inner-city seat of Melbourne from Labor. At this election, the Greens <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/election-2016-the-eight-seats-richard-di-natale-plans-to-turn-green-by-2026-20160505-gomrrr.html">are targeting</a> Grayndler and Sydney in New South Wales, Batman and Wills in Victoria, and possibly Fremantle in Western Australia, too.</p>
<p>The more seats Labor has to defend the fewer resources it has to the gain the 21 seats it needs for a majority. But this is not the only reason the Coalition would countenance what many of its supporters would regard as a deal with the devil.</p>
<p>The Greens’ only lower house MP, Adam Bandt, has <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/adam-bandt-says-greens-would-be-open-to-laborgreens-coalition-ahead-of-election-20160509-goq96g.html">spoken of the possibility</a> of a Labor-Greens coalition in government. It’s a prediction Labor Leader Bill Shorten dismissed, telling the Greens they were <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/election-2016-tell-him-hes-dreaming-bill-shorten-rules-out-laborgreens-coalition-20160509-goqdjj.html">“dreaming”</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122033/original/image-20160511-18128-pany0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122033/original/image-20160511-18128-pany0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122033/original/image-20160511-18128-pany0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122033/original/image-20160511-18128-pany0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122033/original/image-20160511-18128-pany0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122033/original/image-20160511-18128-pany0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122033/original/image-20160511-18128-pany0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Julia Gillard’s deal with the Greens helped her form government in 2010.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Shorten has spent the last two-and-a-half years trying to shed memories of the dysfunction of the Rudd-Gillard years. Talk of a Labor-Green coalition brings with it images of Julia Gillard and Bob Brown signing the agreement that helped usher in her minority government.</p>
<p>The government needs to push Labor to the left in the minds of voters. Any suggestion of a deal with the Greens helps construct such a trap. It is this collision of political reality and metaphor that is toxic for Labor.</p>
<p>Labor cannot win the 21 seats needed for a majority in the House of Representatives unless it lifts its primary vote above the mid-30s where it has been, at best, in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/coalition-gains-slightly-in-post-budget-polls-59050">opinion polls</a> for months.</p>
<p>With a Labor primary vote of 33% – even 38% – there are simply not enough preferences on offer from the Greens, minor parties and independents when it probably needs at least 51% of the two-party-preferred vote to win enough seats to form government on its own.</p>
<p>On the other hand, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull cannot afford to see Coalition support keep sliding towards a primary vote of 40%. And, worryingly for the Coalition, Turnbull’s popularity keeps falling despite the benefits of incumbency. As it stands, he would retain office courtesy only of the comfortable majority bestowed on the Coalition at the 2013 election under Tony Abbott’s leadership.</p>
<p>That would not be much of a personal mandate and would make it even harder for Turnbull to fend off the <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-liberal-leading-the-liberals-can-turnbull-manage-the-ultra-conservatives-53976">rebellion on his right</a>. This is already constraining his room to move on climate change and a range of social issues, most notably same-sex marriage.</p>
<p>Time is Turnbull’s enemy and Shorten’s friend. An election campaign is the one time in the political cycle when an opposition leader is afforded anything like the same stature as a prime minister. However, Shorten needs an opportunity to break the chains shackling Labor’s vote at Gillard-esque levels.</p>
<h2>The possibility of a hung parliament</h2>
<p>Another hung parliament is a real possibility unless Turnbull or Shorten can fashion a breakout from this stalemate. This would raise the question of whether hung parliaments could be the “new normal”, in an era where fewer voters are rusted onto the major parties, rather than an aberration brought on by Labor’s dysfunction in 2010 and beyond.</p>
<p>Forming minority government could prove harder than <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-09-08/labors-minority-government-explained/2253236">it did in 2010</a>. Independents will be even more wary of committing one way or the other given the vilification of Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott for tying themselves to Gillard.</p>
<p>It could again come down to the negotiating skills of the two major party leaders.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122038/original/image-20160511-18157-qjvl6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122038/original/image-20160511-18157-qjvl6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122038/original/image-20160511-18157-qjvl6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122038/original/image-20160511-18157-qjvl6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122038/original/image-20160511-18157-qjvl6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122038/original/image-20160511-18157-qjvl6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122038/original/image-20160511-18157-qjvl6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Malcolm Turnbull cannot afford to see Coalition support keep sliding in the opinion polls.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm says that while he did not agree with Labor on much, its leaders proved <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oVHiSz5Ko8">much more adept negotiators</a> than members of the Turnbull or Abbott governments. Negotiation is in the DNA of Labor politics. Shorten’s union history, where coming to terms with employers on behalf of unionists is the essential skill, may give him a natural advantage.</p>
<p>By contrast, winner-take-all is the goal of courtroom advocacy and corporate deal-making. This is a characteristic Turnbull does not seem to have left behind in his transition from merchant banker and barrister to political leader.</p>
<p>Politics requires leaders to know when to impose their authority, when to compromise, and just how much to give to the losers when, in the future, you may need their support.</p>
<p>If hung parliaments are the way of the future, then their legacy may well be teaching governments to negotiate with the crossbenchers rather than treating them as temporary irritants.</p>
<p>It may well be an assessment on many voters’ minds as they contemplate how they will vote – as well as crucial for Turnbull and Shorten to consider as they vie to run the country.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59173/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jim Middleton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Talk of a Labor-Green coalition brings with it images of Julia Gillard and Bob Brown signing the agreement that helped usher in her minority government.Jim Middleton, Vice Chancellor's Fellow, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/580472016-04-27T20:14:37Z2016-04-27T20:14:37ZState by state, it’s still Malcolm Turnbull’s election to lose<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120121/original/image-20160426-1349-xxsipz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">If the opinion polls continue as they are, the Turnbull government will likely be returned with a reduced majority.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Even though it is not yet official, the 2016 election is all but set for July 2. The election will be a double-dissolution poll on the basis of the Senate’s refusal to pass the government’s bill to re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission.</p>
<p>Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is clearly of the view that an election fought on the matter of union behaviour suits his party’s strategy.</p>
<p>The graphic below shows the marginal seats by state. Three things are immediately apparent:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>New South Wales has the largest collection of ultra-marginal seats; </p></li>
<li><p>Tasmania also has a crucial mass of very marginal seats; and</p></li>
<li><p>the margins on many of these seats tend more towards 2-3% rather than under 1%. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>This list shows how difficult it will be for Labor to win the 2016 election.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120120/original/image-20160426-1327-1i3ztqb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120120/original/image-20160426-1327-1i3ztqb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120120/original/image-20160426-1327-1i3ztqb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=825&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120120/original/image-20160426-1327-1i3ztqb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=825&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120120/original/image-20160426-1327-1i3ztqb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=825&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120120/original/image-20160426-1327-1i3ztqb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1037&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120120/original/image-20160426-1327-1i3ztqb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1037&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120120/original/image-20160426-1327-1i3ztqb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1037&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Labor’s hopes for the 2016 election have been buoyed by indicators of a decline in popular support for the Coalition government and, to a lesser extent, for Turnbull himself. </p>
<p>Soon after ascending to the leadership, opinion polling indicated that Turnbull and his government enjoyed a surge in support. Turnbull probably should have gone to an early election at that point. But, for whatever reason, he decided instead to allow a series of ultimately fruitless “debates” to occur over taxation, wages policy and federal-state financial relations. </p>
<p>These poorly handled debates, and some internal instability instigated by supporters of the deposed leader Tony Abbott, have contributed to the government’s falling popularity.</p>
<p>The decline in the government’s position in the opinion polls, however, has not been so extensive as to constitute a sign of imminent defeat. There has been a swing back to Labor since Turnbull’s ascendancy, and Labor looks like it will improve its position from the last election. </p>
<p>Labor’s rise will be due more to the fact that its defeat in 2013 was so bad that a recovery in its vote and representative numbers was inevitable. Labor could hardly have performed more poorly than it did in 2013. The polls are not indicating anything more than a slight correction on 2013.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/1gSZR/2/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="250"></iframe>
<p>This theme is emphasised when the data is broken down by state. Both Newspoll and Ipsos find a recovery in support for Labor in every state, but not to any particularly significant level – with the exception of Western Australia.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/JlMc1/2/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="285"></iframe>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/CCBPm/2/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="290"></iframe>
<p>The problem for Labor is that Western Australia has few marginal seats. Support for the Liberal and National parties has fallen since the election – but not by much. However, Ipsos finds a dramatic fall in support in Western Australia and South Australia.</p>
<p>More importantly for the Coalition, support in NSW and Queensland remains quite strong. Of the 20 most marginal seats, three are in Queensland and seven are in NSW. The additional seats that Labor would need to win to secure a majority are also in NSW and Queensland. These are the two battleground states in which primary support for the Coalition is much stronger than it is for Labor.</p>
<p>The prospect of an equal outcome in the House of Representatives (a “hung parliament”) can’t be entirely discounted, although traditional political science views equal outcomes in single member electoral district elections with plurality (that is, majoritarian) voting as improbable. In theory, such systems should reward parties winning a majority of the vote an exaggerated majority. </p>
<p>This is the norm in Australian elections. But, as 2010 showed, “hung” parliaments are possible. It is likely that there will be a crossbench after the 2016 election made up of at least one Green (Adam Bandt in Melbourne) and independents Bob Katter (Kennedy), Cathy McGowan (Indi) and possibly Andrew Wilkie (Denison). </p>
<p>This would be a handy enough collection of crossbench MPs. There could be more if Tony Windsor is elected in New England, and if Nick Xenophon’s party upsets traditional voting alignments in South Australia. Both Newspoll and Ipsos have indicated severe weakening of support for the major parties in that state, thus adding another degree of difficulty to the contest. </p>
<p>The swings against the Coalition occurring in the polls are in states with comparatively few seats or, in the case of Victoria, comparatively few marginal government seats. Queensland and NSW are the key battlegrounds and, so far, the polls are indicating that the Coalition vote is holding up.</p>
<p>With the writs for the new election still to be issued and the campaign yet to be in full swing, opinion polls are indicating that the Coalition will be returned with a reduced majority.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58047/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nick Economou does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Despite a recent surge in the polls, the distribution of marginal seats means it will be difficult for Labor to win the coming federal election.Nick Economou, Senior Lecturer, School of Political and Social Inquiry, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.