I have been asked to write on how I would negotiate with the independents and Greens.

You should start with a realistic, apolitical, assessment of the main reasons for the outcome of the election, importantly "the message from the people", beyond the myriad of factors that have determined the outcome in specific seats.

In simple terms, the electorate wants the focus shifted from the "game" of politics to the "business" of government - that is, from seeking to win the daily media cycle(s), to delivering outcomes, from spin and slogans to substantive, deliverable policies.

The electorate was apathetic about both parties and their leaders, the negativity, the lack of vision, the lack of policy substance, the simple fact that they were being treated with contempt, in everything from the way Rudd was removed, thereby usurping their "right" to pass judgement on him and his Government, to the emphasis on bagging the other side, rather than being prepared to offer and debate the detail of real policies that would "solve" the obvious and worsening problems, that impact on their daily lives and their future, the cost of living, health, education, transport and other infrastructure, overall economic management, as well as some more visionary responses to climate change, population, ageing, immigration, refugees, broadband, the possibility of a double dip recession internationally, etc.

Beyond this, there is the loss of faith in Parliament and our political processes, from the sad joke that is now Question Time, through to the "corruption" of electoral funding, the lack of bi-partisanship on the "big" issues, and so on.

There are many buttons that triggered the overall frustration, disenchantment and sense of being disenfranchised in the electorate. They felt that they were presented with little to choose between the spin/rhetoric of the two major parties, and the two leaders that had got there through disloyalty. They were relatively unknown and untested as leaders, both with debatable pasts as Government Ministers. Voters were forced to choose the least worst, and essentially didn't really like either. In these terms, a hung parliament should be no surprise - the message is don't take us for fools, or for granted.

The support for the Greens was largely a protest vote, as it assumed that "they will never govern", although some were conned into believing that they had a better policy on climate change, for example, even though they didn't negotiate and voted against the ETS. They did not offer a comprehensive, integrated policy platform, more a grab bag of populist/sectoral promises and initiatives. They are still, nevertheless, in the eyes of many, the "true" left wing of the ALP.

Second, it is important to recognise the nature of the independents, Katter, Oakeshott and Windsor, and the aspiring independents, Crook and Wilkie. The first four are ex-Nationals, and Wilkie an ex Green, but you shouldn't quickly assume that any of them will easily return to the fold. The first four have a significant regional focus and legitimacy, although Katter is thought to have almost a sole focus on his electorate. However, all would claim discontent/disenchantment with, and protest against, both major political parties.

All are "mavericks' to some extent. All will cope differently, having been suddenly thrust onto the national stage, and now under the national spotlight, subject to intense media scrutiny. While they will all want their egos stroked, with too much there is a danger it will go to their heads. In saying all this, I have assumed that Greens' Bandt will join with the ALP.

Against this perhaps oversimplified background, there are two broad approaches to these negotiations, first, continuance of the "grubby politics" by simply attempting to suck up to them with flattery, and attempt to buy them off with promises/policies/handouts, or, second, to attempt to elevate them beyond their electorates and themselves, by making them a part of "new government", fundamentally committed to jettisoning the old game of politics, and focusing on the business of government. Of course, there is a third approach, namely attempt to do both, do the former, but dress it up, spin it, as the latter.

The factional leaders/ALP strategists behind Gillard, desperate to vindicate themselves for dumping Rudd and the poor campaign, to whom winning is everything, prepared to say or do whatever is required to win, as if they are still playing university politics, the only way is the first approach, but perhaps sold as the second.

The bottom line, although they will not admit it, is that they would have won under Rudd. My ALP pollster source tells me that Gillard's best would have been Rudd's worst. When he was removed, Rudd was in the two-party lead in Newspoll and still way ahead as Preferred PM and, as Twiggy Forrest has revealed, on the verge of announcing a compromise on the mining tax. Of course, these "bosses" have been desperately spinning that while it was tough with Julia, it would have been a Tsunami under Rudd, and implying that Rudd undermined Julia and her campaign with the leaks that killed the first two weeks of their campaign.

It couldn't be, of course, that they called it wrongly. That Rudd's removal was little more than a very personal vendetta by a few factional heavies that Rudd had previously dispensed with by saying things like, "I don't have to listen to you f—ckers", which had brought a response like, "we may lose the battle, but we will win the war", such that at the first opportunity they seized the moment and the media to dispense with him. They then pushed Julia to an early election, attempting to capitalise on her expected honeymoon, and the saturated media coverage on her being Australia's first female PM, but not giving her any real chance to establish herself as a leader, both here and internationally, and with three awkwardly cobbled together responses on the mining tax, asylum seekers and climate change.

Of course not! But, if they don't win this election, if they don't do a deal with these independents and the only Greens MP in the Lower House, and retain Government, you will be swamped in the recriminations. The recriminations have already started with the comments yesterday by Morris Iemma and Anna Bligh.

To lose, they will have sacrificed Gillard and her very promising career, a career I had predicted three years ago would have seen her take over from Rudd in the middle of his second term. They will be held accountable for having gone off half-cocked!

But, imagine that Gillard, who was increasingly, visibly pissed off in the final days of the campaign, and since, will want to have something to say about all this, but will she be able to, in ALP factional terms, will they let her? Can she publicly call the likes of Bitar and Arbib to account? Nevertheless, expect the "new Julia" to present it as having listened to the electorate, promising a new broom, a new politics, some reform, outcome focus, and so on. But, will she now be believed? Is she damaged goods?

Hardly a prescription for the new catch phrase "stable government", win or lose!

On the other hand, Abbott is in the ascendency, now broadly being seen to have won the campaign, essentially by performing better than expected, particularly as being more focused and disciplined than expected, and as having unified the Opposition. But, he is still seen as much more negative than positive, reactionary, than visionary, a great Leader of the Opposition, but doubted as a PM.

The moment is his to seize, to position himself as a genuine national leader with a genuine commitment to real reform and change, but he will need substance to succeed. He will need to do, not just be seen to do, what many believe he can't.

His major difficulty will be to overcome all the past animosities that led Katter, Oakeshott and Windsor to leave the Nationals in the first place, and thereby to deliver a believable and deliverable political reform and a broader policy agenda to satisfy and involve them.

This will not be easy. Windsor set the magnitude of the task in his case in an early, off-the-cuff remark, to the effect that he gave up both smoking and the Nationals in the 1980s, and thereby avoided two cancers!

Broad based parliamentary and political reform will be a basic requirement for both parties: independent Speaker, clean up Question Time and Ministerial responsibility, elevate the Parliamentary Committee process, ban individual/corporate/institutional campaign donations, moving to full public funding of elections, etc.

Abbott will also need to surprise on key visionary issues, particularly broadband. He could do worse than give Windsor a key role in this respect. Ministerial appointments, "policy guru" type roles, with cabinet accountability, to involve should be considered.

This process of negotiation is only beginning. Given form on both sides, perhaps we shouldn't expect too much. But, this time, I feel that the electorate will demand real progress, otherwise we'll end up with another election in the near term.

Finally, it should be recognised that the next three years could be very tough for whoever wins Government. Political uncertainty will persist through to at least April next year, with the closeness of this Federal outcome, and State elections in Victoria in November, and NSW in March next year.

This will compound the problems of managing the very flat, non-resource sector of our economy, with many business failures and bankruptcies to come, and with at best a very flat recovery in the major economies, some slowing in China and Asia, and the risks of a double dip and further, significant financial market volatility. Our fiscal conservatives will be tested. Not to mention the crunches in health, education and infrastructure threatening on the horizon.

Dr. John Hewson was the federal leader of the Liberal Party of Australia from 1990 to 1994.