Now let's watch ACT's support plummet when people considering voting for them realise that ACT are starting to look like an unstable party....
βConfidence-onlyβ: An Act bluff or a real prospect of a policy-by-policy minority government?
A policy-by-policy government, with each issue only progressing if thereβs a parliamentary majority.
And another election next year if, by Budget 2024, thereβs no agreement on government spending.
This is the hypothetical possibility in the confidence-only governing arrangement that Act leader David Seymour is floating
if the numbers fall National and Actβs way, but National is unwilling to shift the dial far enough.
Thereβs a lot that National and Act agree on, such as the law and order space, but there are also substantial differences when it comes to government spending and tax.
So might it transpire that National comes to implement its tax package in Budget 2024 and Act refuses to support it, leading to a new election?
Getting way ahead of ourselves.
What Seymour is clear about is that he wonβt stop Christopher Luxon from becoming Prime Minister, and, in an ideal world, they would agree on a coalition platform.
βThe strong preference is that you actually nut out the outline of whatβs going to happen for the next three years in a coalition agreement - and then you keep your word,β Seymour told the
Herald.
But if post-election negotiations break down, Act could decide to pledge support for Luxon as Prime Minister but nothing more.
βAt the extreme, you might end up with each Budget and each extra initiative requiring a negotiation. Now, that would be painful for everybody. We just make the point that weβre prepared to do it if absolutely required,β Seymour said.
βMy sense is that theyβre always going to come back to the table. But itβs about getting the best deal.
βIf youβve committed to vote for every Budget unconditionally, then youβve really given up the chance to be influential, to make sure that the change of government is more than just a change in personnel.β
Act could offer confidence-only and theoretically still be at the Cabinet table, but Seymour said it would probably mean a National minority government.
Minority governments are fairly common in Canada, he added.
βItβs not an unusual thing. This is not wild or radical. Weβre just being more transparent about the relationship that weβd like to have on the one hand, and are prepared to have if necessary on the other.β
It could also mean a potential impasse come Budget 2024, says Otago University legal expert Professor Andrew Geddis.
βWhat Act seems to be saying is, βLook, if in that period of negotiation after the election we canβt get what we want, then weβll let National get in and start governing. And we will carry on negotiating fiscal matters until 2024, when the Budget has to happen. If we reach an agreement by then, great, government can carry on. But if we havenβt, well, we pull the pinβ.β
Geddis said not supporting a minority government on supply is essentially a vote of no-confidence in the government.
βAt that point, it seems hard to see how youβd have anything but a new election,β he said.
βItβs a very high-risk strategy. It may work. But if it goes wrong and National, in essence, calls their bluff, then theyβre faced with either having to back down and looking a bit silly, or alternatively actually taking the country back to the polls.β
Labour will certainly not be unhappy with Seymourβs comments, with leader Chris Hipkins portraying them as a recipe for instability.
But another election would be extremely unlikely.
It would mean the National and Act relationship was so irreconcilable that theyβd be prepared to go back to the polls, where theyβd be severely punished for failing to put together a workable government.
So some pre-election posturing, then?
Luxon seemed to hint at this by dismissing questions about Seymourβs confidence-only arrangement.
βI just donβt think thatβs going to be a reality at all,β Luxon said.
βDavid Seymour and I have a good personal relationship. Weβre going to have a very constructive relationship in government.β
Luxon side-stepped questions about whether Seymour was bluffing, and dismissed talk about a National minority government as hypothetical.
On that latter point he agreed with Seymour, who said: βAll of this is ridiculously hypothetical because no oneβs even voted yet.β
David Seymour has talked about offering support to Luxon only on confidence, not supply
www.nzherald.co.nz