Mattress tested for political comfort

Very differently. That is how politicians will approach coalition-making this time.

The flawed National-New Zealand First coalition taught everyone some lessons:

* Don't hobble negotiations with non-negotiable bottom lines.

* Don't bind yourself with an inflexible coalition agreement.

* Come up with shared "goals" and "understandings" instead.

* Don't rule out minority government.

* Above all, never say you'll never talk to someone.

Such flexibility (or pragmatism) is amply demonstrated by Jenny Shipley's hotchpotch minority Government. Tainted by party-hoppers, it has defied the odds on its survival and proved far more functional than its supposedly more stable predecessor.

And there is a lesson for voters. What politicians say before an election about deals afterwards should be treated with scepticism. As Shipley and Helen Clark are fond of saying, the numbers in Parliament will dictate who deals with whom.

Everyone agrees negotiations should be completed within three weeks, as against the nine it took last time. What are the options?

NATIONAL-ACT: Act says it is reluctant to join a formal coalition, even though National clearly expects a deal for not standing against Richard Prebble in Wellington Central. Prebble would prefer to sit on the cross-benches and support a minority National government - as he has been doing.

Act does not want to be swamped by National and could stay outside Government if it has relatively few MPs. Prebble may be foxing. Act avoids the "coalition" word, believing it turns off voters.

Prebble also says any approach from Shipley will be treated seriously. If Act joins a coalition, it will not want a detailed document.

Instead, it will seek agreed targets or goals covering tax cuts, a freeze on Government spending, cuts in bureaucratic red tape and finality on Treaty of Waitangi claims.

It would also push for more privatisation, tougher welfare rules, a toughening of the Employment Contracts Act and Holidays Act, and cuts in the public service.

Apart from being Deputy Prime Minister, Prebble is tipped for a Finance role. Rodney Hide wants Revenue responsibilities. Act also wants an Education job for Donna Awatere Huata, although Prebble denies Act is fixated with getting certain portfolios.

The likely flashpoint is Act's radicalism, which would at some point run smack into National's middle-of-the-road pragmatism. However, the two parties have worked together in Parliament for more than a year and exhibit a healthy tension which ensures they remain distinct from one another.

LABOUR-ALLIANCE: Labour has never ruled out governing alone if it is the biggest party in Parliament and can outvote parties to its right, thus not having to rely on the Alliance to pass legislation. Some in the Alliance favour staying out of coalition.

But Jim Anderton wants power. Labour is unlikely to have the numbers without him. The two parties have been talking privately for months, primarily about "process" rather than policy. They have worked out liaison and dispute procedures to ensure the coalition remains stable when things get sticky.

Both parties want a flexible agreement which endures beyond three years. This is partly why the Alliance has moderated some of its policies at this election.

It hopes to implement the more expensive ones in the following term. The Alliance also wants space to show it is making a difference.

It wants the right to initiate legislation Labour does not support. It may want to distance itself from some cabinet decisions of the Labour majority. This will require rewriting the cabinet manual on collective responsibility - the convention that Shipley wielded to sack Winston Peters.

The Alliance wants a new portfolio of economic development plus jobs in the Housing, Conservation and Justice portfolios. Likely flashpoints are Labour's moderate spending plans and the relentless ideological drive of Alliance MPs, who will push Labour to go faster than it wants.

Another problem is Anderton's tendency to alienate people. In parts of the Labour caucus, he remains as popular as Rasputin.

Neither of these combinations looks like gaining enough seats to govern alone and will have to rely on the support of one or more of the following:

NEW ZEALAND FIRST: Peters is already dropping hints as to his favoured choice. Last month, he hinted Labour and then denied he meant what he said.

Last week, Shipley was declared persona non grata. Ignore him. He is just trying to woo votes away from Labour. The best advice comes from him: scorn stories, rumour and gossip which claim to know what he will do.

His official line is that he will negotiate with National or Labour. NZ First's conservative instincts place it closer to National.

But the centre-left may win the most seats, putting him under far more pressure than last time to oust National. But the very things Labour wants to move on - tax rises, repealing the Employment Contracts Act and rolling back the privatisation of accident compensation - are things Peters would likely block.

He has also thrown a spanner into coalition talks by demanding another look at compulsory superannuation. Another complication is the refusal of Act and the Alliance to work with him.

One way out of this is for NZ First to sit on the cross-benches and prop up a minority Labour-Alliance administration or a National-Act one. He would keep them on notice; they would stare him down in the belief he would not force another election.

It's exactly the sort of high-stakes politics he relishes.

UNITED: A certainty to win his Wellington seat, Peter Dunne's competence would bolster any cabinet. United has far greater policy compatibility with National, although Dunne has not completely ruled out Labour. But he will never support tax rises for $60,000-plus voters in his middle-class electorate. That puts Labour out of contention.

THE GREENS: Refuses to deal with National or Act. Would talk coalition with Labour and Alliance, although some Greens prefer to stay outside Government to keep their brand pure. They would seek at least one cabinet slot, probably for co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons. Portfolio preferences include Environment, Energy or Transport to push a Green "vision."

The Greens would expect coalition partners to pay more than lip-service to organic farming, eco-taxes and levies on users of hazardous substances.

CHRISTIAN HERITAGE: Will not enter a coalition, preferring to vote issue-by-issue in Parliament to avoid compromising party principles. However, Christian Heritage will support the biggest bloc in the House on confidence and Budget motions to bolster stable government.

Would exercise balance-of-power "responsibly" and abstain on some issues to avoid triggering an early election.

MAURI PACIFIC: Will talk to anyone to get the best deal. Mauri Pacific has struck up a rapport with National, partly because they are chalk and cheese and neither threatens the other. Although sharing similar objectives to Labour, leader Tau Henare would have to fight harder to extract any credit for Maori initiatives if he joined that party in Government. Infighting for control of the Maori seats would be compounded by personal antagonisms with Labour MPs which date from the Aotearoa Television saga.

OTHERS/INDEPENDENTS: Independent candidate Derek Fox refuses to say which party he will support if he wins Ikaroa-Rawhiti and holds the balance of power. Tuariki Delamere, who has an outside chance of holding the Waiariki seat, is happy to work with National or Labour.