John Armstrong: Next three years could be last

With Labour Party president Mike Williams feeling like someone who dodged a bullet last Saturday, what odds on Labour dodging one next time?

It would be ridiculously premature to write off a party's chances at the next election just a week after it won a remarkable victory.

But the distinct possibility that the next three years will be Labour's last in power for a while must weigh heavily on the minds of politicians constructing a new governing arrangement that could comprise as many as six of the eight parties in Parliament.

It will weigh on the Greens, whose resolve to get core policies implemented after six years of waiting in the wings was evident in their terse warning to Labour that they will veto any deal that puts United Future's Peter Dunne into the Cabinet ahead of them.

Labour's longevity on the Treasury benches will also be exercising Dunne and Winston Peters. They will be pondering the wisdom of tethering themselves to a tiring third-term Administration when they need to engender a recovery in their respective parties' fortunes.

But the way the numbers fell last Saturday has taken matters out of their hands. Not even National is fooling itself into thinking Tariana Turia's afternoon tea with Don Brash was about anything other than increasing her Maori Party's leverage over Helen Clark.

The composition of the new Labour-led Government is likely to be clearer much sooner than the caretaker Prime Minister is letting on.

Clark has put meetings with other leaders on hold, but her redoubtable chief of staff, Heather Simpson, will be negotiating at fever-pitch pace with counterparts from other parties over the wording of agreements to secure a Labour majority on confidence motions.

Clark wants everything nailed down by next Saturday, when counting of special votes will be complete, the final composition of Parliament is apparent and draft agreements can be officially formalised.

Those agreements will not necessarily be altered by the Greens or Jim Anderton's Progressives gaining an extra seat out of the specials - even though that would enable Labour, the Progressives and the Greens to form a tidy centre-left coalition with the backing of the Maori Party - and without New Zealand First or United Future.

No way is Clark going to put herself in the position of relying on Turia.

Clark's preferred modus operandi is to run a minority coalition with Anderton, with a smorgasbord of support partners to whom she can turn to get legislation through Parliament.

The unpredictabilities of office and the expiry of the law stopping MPs from waka-jumping also make it wise to bring New Zealand First and United Future into the equation even though she might not need them on confidence motions.

It may also be better to deal with Peters now when his bargaining power is weaker, than have to go cap in hand to him at some later date. Moreover, should he become "difficult", a centre-left coalition could then be a fall-back option.

But the prospect of a six-party behemoth begs a question: what kind of government will Clark be able to run?

The left - Labour's trade union wing, the left faction in the party's caucus, the Greens and the Progressives - worries that it will be a timid and paralysed Administration, given that Clark has chosen to "look right" for support rather than wait for the specials.

The left fears Labour will see added reason in putting its reform agenda on the back-burner, given it will not take much of a swing to National next time to turf it out of office.

Labour must also adjust to losing the luxury of the last Parliament where it could essentially pass any legislation it wanted by turning to either United Future on its right or the Greens on its left.

The one time Labour was over a barrel was the passing of the foreshore and seabed legislation when Turia and Nanaia Mahuta were both expected to cross the floor.

That was extremely messy. But with Labour now having to sign up several parties with conflicting ideologies to get anything through Parliament, that may become the norm.

However, Labour may not be as paralysed as initial impressions might suggest.

While it will have to "look right", large chunks of Labour policy are compatible with New Zealand First. Both parties, for example, take a more hands-on approach to economic management.

Meanwhile, United Future's influence will be much reduced by it losing five of its eight MPs.

There is endless capacity for policy trade-offs and deals. Labour will also be able to buy some harmony by ensuring delivery of policy concessions to minor partners in return for confidence and supply is staggered though the parliamentary term.

Managing a six-party arrangement will also be easier if the Greens and United Future join Labour and Anderton in coalition, making them subject to the discipline of collective Cabinet responsibility.

Labour will also try to quarantine its support partners from one another by dealing with each separately so they cannot gang up and demand more concessions.

This "divide-and-control" strategy is made easier by the Greens, Dunne and Peters sharing a mutual antipathy.

Even a left-leaning Greens-Maori Party bloc is unlikely, given that the Greens recognise Clark's distrust of Turia could backfire on them.

If all else fails, Clark has the ultimate weapon: threatening a fresh election on a partner who plays up.

What Labour may have less control over is the minor partners pinging one another. It will be much easier for a minor party to play one-upmanship with rivals by blocking legislation.

Moreover, Labour's partners will heed a lesson from last week's election. Dunne was banking on voters rewarding his party's good behaviour. They didn't.

Such infighting may not threaten Government stability so much as undermine Labour's efforts to convey an impression of stability. Herding cats may be a doddle by comparison.

Not surprisingly, there is already talk of putting a Cabinet minister in charge of Labour's dealings with its partners, such is the potential for things to go hideously wrong.

The other option has Heather Simpson doing the job, as she has through previous terms.

The new Government is already being dubbed "Simpson's Government", such could be her role in keeping it afloat.

The apostrophe should not be misplaced. It could be the difference between being an effective Government or becoming The Simpsons' Government.