One Nation and coalitions

Greater political advantage will be seen with each party campaigning separately. That allows them to appeal to different groups of voters and promote policies that are not necessarily the same. On issues such as gas exports or the Paris Agreement, for example, each party can argue its own approach is better without needing to settle any disagreements beforehand.

What matters most is keeping communication open and avoiding unnecessary acrimony. There are two key reasons for this.

The first is practical politics. If post-election negotiations become necessary, they are much easier when parties have not attacked each other in destructive ways and there are no personality conflicts.

The second reason involves preferences. In House of Representatives elections, voters must number every box for their vote to count. If a voter's preferred candidate is eliminated, their vote is transferred according to those preferences.

This means parties need to think carefully about what they do with their How-To-Vote cards. If the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation want to maximise the total number of non-Labor seats, they need to ensure their voters' preferences flow to one another before Labor or the Greens.

Preference flows often decide the outcomes. In many electorates, conservative parties may be behind on first preferences but can still defeat Labor if preferences are tightly exchanged. Equally, if those preferences do not flow efficiently, Labor can win seats despite lacking first-preference support.

Strategic thinking on preferences has long been difficult for the Liberal Party. The party has typically focused exclusively on winning seats itself and is reluctant to assist smaller conservative parties (aside from the Nationals), even when cooperation could improve the broader result for the political right.

This has had major consequences in the Senate, as I have discussed previously, where the Liberals will not be able to achieve a workable majority for the foreseeable future.

Current polling suggests there could be many seats at the next election where Labor leads on primary votes while the Liberals or Nationals and One Nation compete for second place. If the Liberals or Nationals are third, they need to be comfortable with their preferences electing One Nation candidates. Reassurance to their voters that this is intended will be needed.

One Nation will similarly need to ensure their voters are comfortable electing Liberals and Nationals, in preference to Labor. The 'plague on both their houses' mentality runs deep among the party's supporters, but it is not politically constructive.

Only then, if enough seats are won on the anti-Labor side of politics, can discussions about some form of coalition or governing agreement take place. Until that happens, it is not a discussion worth having.