• Part of the politics series Party politics

Political spectrum

• Left-wing

  • Far-left
  • Left
  • Centre-left

• Centre

  • Centre-left
  • Centre-right

• Right-wing

  • Centre-right
  • Right
  • Far-right

• Syncretic

Major ideologies

• Agrarianism
• Anarchism
• Christian democracy
• Communism
• Conservatism
• Environmentalism
• Fascism
• Feminism
• Green politics
• Hindutva
• Islamism
• Liberalism
• Libertarianism
• Monarchism
• Nationalism
• Populism
• Progressivism
• Radical centrism
• Classical radicalism
• Social democracy
• Socialism
• Syncretism
• Third Way

Types

• Bloc party
• Elite party
• Cartel party
• Competitive
• Catch-all party
• Entrepreneurial party
• Ethnic party
• Fraternal party
• Major party / Minor party
• Mass party
• Ruling party / Opposition party
• Rump party
• Parliamentary opposition
• Party of power
• Official party status
• Single-issue party
• Transnational / International

Leaders and organization

• Backbencher
• Caucus
• Caucus chair
• Frontbencher
• Lead candidate
• Leader of the Opposition
• Majority leader
• Minority leader
• Political faction
• Parliamentary leader
• Party chair
• Party leader
• Party spokesperson
• Party secretary
• Shadow cabinet
• Whip

Internal elections

• Primary election
• Leadership election
• Open list
• Party convention/conference
• Leadership convention

Party discipline

• Conscience vote
• Crossing the floor
• Party discipline
• Party line
• Party-line vote
• Party switching
• Whip

Party systems

• One-party
• Dominant-party
• Two-party
• Multi-party
• Non-partisan

Coalitions between parties

• Coalition government
• Confidence and supply
• Consensus government
• Cordon sanitaire
• Divided government
• Electoral alliance
• Grand coalition
• Hung parliament
• Majority government
• Minority government
• National unity government
• Parliamentary group
• Rotation government

Lists of political parties

• Ruling political parties by country
• Political parties by region
• Banned political parties
• Largest political parties

Politics portal

• v
• t
• e

Within the intricate, often baffling, ecosystems of parliamentary democracies —particularly those clinging to the venerable, if occasionally bewildering, traditions of the Westminster system —one encounters the rather precarious political arrangement known as ‘confidence and supply.’ This isn’t a grand alliance, mind you, but more of a reluctant truce. It manifests when a minority government —that is, a governing party or bloc that has failed to secure an outright majority of seats within the legislative body—finds itself needing a lifeline. This lifeline comes in the form of guaranteed support from one or more smaller parties or even individual independent Members of Parliament (MPs) on two absolutely critical matters: confidence votes and the passage of the nation’s financial blueprint, euphemistically termed ‘supply’ or the state budget . The beauty, or perhaps the calculated risk, of such an agreement lies in its limited scope. Beyond these fundamental pillars of governmental survival, the non-government partners who have grudgingly lent their ‘confidence and supply’ are under no obligation—none at all—to throw their weight behind the government on any other piece of legislation. It’s a pragmatic, often cynical, bargain struck to prevent immediate collapse, allowing the government to function without the constant threat of being unseated, yet simultaneously highlighting its inherent weakness. [1] [2]

One might be tempted to confuse this fragile pact with a full-blown coalition government , but that would be like mistaking a casual acquaintance for a lifelong commitment. A coalition, you see, is a far more formal, deeply entangled affair. In such an arrangement, the junior parties—meaning those smaller entities coalescing with the largest governing party—are not merely offering conditional support. No, they are typically expected to adhere to the government’s whip across virtually all legislative matters, effectively binding their votes to the government’s agenda. More significantly, they become active, formal participants in the machinery of governance, with their members often being granted prestigious, or at least visible, offices within the cabinet and holding specific ministerial roles . A confidence-and-supply agreement, by contrast, is a minimalist approach, a political handshake rather than a full embrace, offering just enough stability to keep the ship afloat without inviting the supporting parties aboard to steer.

Confidence

Main article: Motion of no confidence

In the grand theater of most parliamentary democracies , the concept of ‘confidence’ is paramount. It refers to the political trust and legitimacy a government holds from the elected representatives. To test this, members of a parliament possess the power to propose a motion of confidence [a] or, conversely, a motion of no confidence in the sitting government or its executive. The outcomes of such motions are not mere symbolic gestures; they are stark indicators of the government’s current level of support within the legislative body. Should a motion of confidence fail to pass, or should a motion of no confidence successfully garner a majority, the consequences are typically severe. The government is usually compelled to either tender its resignation, thereby paving the way for other political factions to attempt forming a new administration, or to dissolve parliament and initiate a fresh general election , allowing the electorate to decide the next course of action. It’s a high-stakes game of political survival, where losing the confidence of the house means facing the abyss.

Supply

Main articles: Appropriation bill and Loss of supply

Beyond the abstract concept of ‘confidence,’ there’s the very concrete, very necessary issue of ‘supply.’ This refers to the financial wherewithal a government requires to actually function—to pay its myriad expenses, fund public services, and implement its policy agenda. The vast majority of parliamentary democracies mandate the annual passage of a national budget, often referred to as an appropriation bill or simply a supply bill. Occasionally, other crucial financial measures also fall under this umbrella. Without the parliament’s approval of these financial instruments, the government simply cannot legally spend money. Consequently, the failure of a supply bill to pass is, in practical terms, indistinguishable from the failure of a confidence motion. Both outcomes signify a fundamental lack of support for the government and typically lead to the same political crisis. Historically, the power to withhold funds was one of the earliest and most potent levers available to the Parliament of England in its ongoing struggle to assert control over the monarch during early modern times, demonstrating the enduring significance of ‘supply’ in the balance of power. The threat of a loss of supply remains a formidable tool for an opposition.

List of governments currently under a confidence-and-supply agreement

The following table outlines various national and sub-national governments currently operating under the fragile equilibrium of a confidence-and-supply agreement. Each entry details the head of government, the core governing parties, the indispensable confidence partners, and the distribution of seats that underpins these arrangements. It serves as a stark reminder that political power is often a delicate balancing act, rarely a monolithic force.

Sub-national

Examples of confidence-and-supply deals

The political landscape is littered with examples of these delicate arrangements, each a testament to the unpredictable nature of electoral outcomes and the creative, sometimes desperate, measures politicians employ to maintain a semblance of control.

Australia

Federal

In a display of political acrobatics, the Australian Labor Party Gillard government formed a minority government following the 2010 federal election . The parliament, having delivered a hung verdict, left no single party with a clear majority. To navigate this treacherous terrain, the Labor Party secured its hold on power through a meticulously negotiated confidence-and-supply agreement. This pact saw three crucial independent MPs and one Green MP commit to supporting the government on essential confidence and supply matters, thereby providing just enough stability to govern. It was a pragmatic solution, allowing the government to function while acknowledging its reliance on external, often unpredictable, allies. [4]

New South Wales

More recently, the 2023 New South Wales state election presented a similar challenge. The Labor opposition, despite a strong showing, fell short of an outright majority, securing 45 seats against the 47 required to govern alone. In this scenario, three pivotal independent Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs)—Alex Greenwich , Greg Piper , and Joe McGirr —became the kingmakers. They subsequently entered into a confidence-and-supply agreement with the incoming Labor government, ensuring its ability to pass crucial legislation and avoid immediate collapse, but retaining their independence on other policy matters.

Tasmania

The 2024 Tasmanian state election also saw the incumbent Liberal government facing a shortfall, with 14 seats against the 18 needed for an absolute majority. To bridge this gap, the Liberal government entered into a confidence-and-supply agreement. This arrangement involved the Jacqui Lambie Network , a minor party, alongside independent Members of the House of Assembly (MHAs) David O’Byrne and Kristie Johnston . Their commitment to supporting the government on confidence and supply motions allowed the Liberal administration to continue its mandate, albeit with a constant awareness of its reliance on these external votes.

Australian Capital Territory

Following the 2024 Australian Capital Territory election , the ACT Labor Party found itself with 10 seats, just shy of the 13 required for a majority. The ACT Greens , holding 4 seats, once again found themselves in the influential position of holding the balance of power. However, deviating from the pattern of the preceding three elections, Labor and the Greens opted not to form a formal coalition government . Instead, the Greens committed to providing confidence and supply to a minority Labor government [5] [6]. This arrangement implies a less integrated partnership, granting the Greens leverage on specific issues while allowing Labor to govern without their full programmatic alignment.

Canada

Federal

In November 2008, Canadian federal politics witnessed a particularly dramatic attempt at a confidence agreement. The Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois formally signed an agreement to support a proposed coalition government. However, this ambitious political maneuver ultimately unraveled amidst a contentious parliamentary dispute in January 2009, preventing the proposed government from ever taking office. [7] [8]

More recently, in 2022, several months into the 44th Canadian Parliament , the New Democratic Party (NDP) and the governing Liberal Party forged a confidence-and-supply agreement. This pact was designed to sustain the Liberal minority government , initially intended to remain in effect until 2025. Under the terms of this deal, the NDP pledged its support to the government on all confidence motions and crucial budget votes. In return, the Liberal government committed to advancing key NDP policy priorities, specifically in areas such as dental care, pharmaceutical drug coverage, and affordable childcare initiatives [9]. However, this political marriage of convenience proved finite, with NDP leader Jagmeet Singh announcing the early termination of the agreement on 4 September 2024, plunging the Liberals back into a more precarious minority status. [10]

British Columbia

2017–2020

Following the 2017 British Columbia provincial election , the political landscape was fragmented. The Green Party of British Columbia ultimately agreed to a confidence-and-supply agreement, extending its crucial support to the British Columbia New Democratic Party . [11] Despite holding a plurality of seats, the incumbent British Columbia Liberal Party made a brief, ultimately futile, attempt to form a government. Their efforts were swiftly thwarted when they were defeated in a confidence vote by the combined forces of the NDP and Greens [12]. This confidence-and-supply arrangement, initially slated to last until the next fixed election in October 2021, was prematurely dissolved. Premier John Horgan opted to request the lieutenant governor to call a snap election in 2020 , seeking a stronger mandate and ending the reliance on the Greens. [13]

2024–present

The political dance continued in British Columbia after the 2024 provincial election , which saw the NDP secure a razor-thin one-seat majority government. Despite this nominal majority, the NDP and Green Party announced on 13 December 2024 that they had finalized a new confidence and supply agreement, aptly named the “2024 Co-operation and Responsible Government Accord.” [14] This agreement stipulates that the Green Party will support the NDP government on all confidence votes for a term of four years, contingent upon annual renewal. In exchange, the two parties committed to cooperation on mutually agreed policy objectives, including the expansion of health care funding and public transit initiatives [15] [16]. It’s a pragmatic recognition that even a slim majority can benefit from formalized support.

New Brunswick

On 2 November 2018, less than two months after the 2018 New Brunswick general election , the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick became the stage for a critical vote. A motion, introduced by the Progressive Conservatives , sought to amend the throne speech to explicitly declare no confidence in the sitting government. The motion passed by a narrow margin of 25–23 votes. Following this defeat, Premier Brian Gallant indicated his intention to resign the premiership and recommended to the lieutenant governor that PC leader Blaine Higgs be afforded the opportunity to form a minority government. Gallant stated, “I will go see the lieutenant-governor at her earliest convenience to inform her that I will be resigning as premier, and I will humbly suggest to her honour to allow the leader of the Conservative Party to attempt to form a government and attempt to gain the confidence of the house.” In the aftermath, People’s Alliance leader Kris Austin publicly committed to working with the new government “in the areas we agree on” and reiterated his promise to support the Progressive Conservatives on confidence votes for an initial period of 18 months. Similarly, Green Party leader David Coon expressed his intent to collaborate with the Tories to ensure his party’s priorities were considered in the government’s agenda [17].

Ontario

The political landscape of Ontario shifted dramatically twenty-two days after the 1985 Ontario provincial election . The existing Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario government was compelled to resign following a successful motion of no confidence . Subsequently, the Ontario Liberal Party was able to form a new government, thanks to a crucial confidence-and-supply agreement with the Ontario New Democratic Party [18]. This specific agreement between the two parties became famously known as “The Accord,” a testament to its significance in shaping provincial politics at the time [19].

Yukon

After the 2021 territorial election resulted in an unusual tie—both the Yukon Liberal Party and the Yukon Party secured an equal number of seats—the third-place Yukon New Democratic Party found itself in a pivotal position. To resolve the stalemate and allow for stable governance, the NDP agreed to provide confidence and supply to a Liberal minority government [20]. This arrangement allowed the Liberals to govern, despite not holding a clear majority, by ensuring their survival on critical votes.

India

In India, the concept of external support for minority governments has historical precedent. So-called Third Front national governments were successfully formed in 1989 and again in 1996 . These administrations, unable to secure a majority on their own, relied heavily on the outside support of one of the two dominant major parties at the time, either the BJP or the Indian National Congress .

A notable instance occurred between 2004 and 2008, when the CPI-M (Communist Party of India (Marxist)) provided crucial outside support to the Congress Party. This arrangement allowed the Congress-led government to function. However, this support was not unconditional or indefinite. The CPI-M later dramatically withdrew its backing following disagreements over the controversial India–United States Civil Nuclear Agreement , demonstrating the inherent fragility and conditional nature of such political pacts.

Ireland

Following the 2016 general election , a minority government was meticulously constructed by Fine Gael in conjunction with several independent politicians. This government’s stability was underpinned by a confidence and supply agreement, known in Irish as “muinín agus soláthar” [21], with their traditional rivals, Fianna Fáil . In exchange for this vital support, a publicly available set of policy commitments from the government was agreed upon [22]. Under the terms of this agreement, Fianna Fáil committed to abstaining on confidence and supply votes, effectively allowing the government to survive. However, they shrewdly reserved the right to vote either for or against any other bill proposed in the Dáil (the lower house) or the Seanad (the upper house), thereby maintaining significant leverage and legislative independence. This intricate deal endured throughout the term of the 32nd Dáil , only concluding when the Dáil was dissolved on 14 January 2020, paving the way for a general election in February 2020 [23] [24].

Italy

In the labyrinthine world of Italian politics, the equivalent of a confidence and supply arrangement is referred to as “external support” (Italian : appoggio esterno). From the 1950s through the 1970s, numerous Christian Democratic cabinets managed to govern, not through outright majorities, but by skillfully leveraging confidence and supply agreements with various minor parties. Perhaps the most celebrated, or infamous, example was the Andreotti III Cabinet , formed in 1976. This government operated with a groundbreaking confidence and supply agreement between the Christian Democrats and the Italian Communist Party . This pact, famously dubbed “the historic compromise ” (Italian : il compromesso storico), saw the Communist Party agree to a critical pledge: they would refrain from voting against the government during confidence votes, offering a lifeline to an otherwise unstable administration.

More contemporary instances include the Dini Cabinet , established in 1995, and the Monti Cabinet , which took office in 2011. Both of these were technocratic governments , meaning they were composed largely of non-partisan experts rather than elected politicians. Their ability to govern relied entirely on securing the external support of the main political parties in Parliament during crucial confidence votes, highlighting that even non-political administrations can be beholden to these delicate political balances.

Japan

In Japan , the arrangement that parallels confidence and supply is known as “extra-cabinet cooperation” (閣外協力, kakugai kyōryoku). A significant instance of this occurred after the 1996 House of Representatives election . The Second Hashimoto Cabinet , a single-party government led by the LDP which was somewhat short of majorities in both houses of the Diet, secured an agreement with two parties: the Japan Socialist Party (JSP) and Shintō Sakigake (New Party Sakigake). These two parties had previously been part of the governing coalition with the LDP until the election. This extra-cabinet cooperation provided the necessary parliamentary stability without formal cabinet participation. By 1997, the LDP had strategically augmented its numbers in the House of Representatives through accessions (notably from defectors from the New Frontier Party ) and harbored ambitions of regaining full parliamentary control in the upcoming 1998 House of Councillors election. However, these aspirations were dashed. The cooperation agreement was ultimately terminated, and the government suffered significant losses in the 1998 election, resulting in a so-called “Twisted Diet” where the opposition controlled the upper house. The Hashimoto Cabinet resigned, making way for a new cabinet led by Prime Minister Keizō Ōbuchi, which subsequently entered formal negotiations with other parties to form a more stable coalition government by January 1999 (the First Reshuffled Obuchi Cabinet).

More recently, in 2025, the LDP and Ishin no Kai (Japan Innovation Party) reportedly agreed to sign a confidence and supply agreement [25].

Beyond these formal agreements, an implicit form of cooperation often exists. This involves (typically very small) parties that are not part of the cabinet but choose to join one of the ruling parties within joint parliamentary groups in one or both houses of the National Diet . By doing so, they effectively vote with the government, providing a less formal, yet still crucial, layer of support.

Malaysia

In a significant political development, a confidence and supply agreement was formally signed in Malaysia on 13 September 2021. This unprecedented pact was forged between the Barisan Nasional coalition and the opposition bloc, Pakatan Harapan . The stated objective was to fortify political stability amidst the ongoing challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic . This marked a historic moment as it was the first such agreement ever signed in Malaysia designed to ensure bipartisan cooperation at a federal level, signaling a potential shift towards more collaborative governance in a typically adversarial political environment [26].

New Zealand

In New Zealand , confidence and supply arrangements are a rather common feature of the political landscape, largely attributable to the country’s adoption of the Mixed-member proportional (MMP) electoral system. The parties that agree to provide confidence and supply in New Zealand typically play a more pronounced and visible role compared to their counterparts in other nations. It is not unusual for Members of Parliament (MPs) from these crucial support parties to be appointed to significant ministerial portfolios , albeit usually outside of the formal Cabinet itself [27]. New Zealand has even gone so far as to codify the precise procedures and conventions it employs for the formation of these governments within its comprehensive Cabinet Manual [28].

For instance, John Key ’s National Party administration successfully formed a minority government after the 2008 general election . This was made possible by securing confidence-and-supply agreements with the ACT Party , United Future , and the Māori Party [29]. A similar, though slightly different, arrangement had characterized the 2005 general election outcome, which saw Helen Clark ’s Labour Party form a coalition government with the Progressive Party , further bolstered by confidence and supply support from New Zealand First and United Future . Following both the 2011 and 2014 elections, the National Party again entered into renewed confidence-and-supply agreements with United Future, the ACT Party, and the Māori Party, demonstrating the recurring utility of such pacts. The 2017 general election presented another twist: despite the National Party winning a greater share of votes than Labour, New Zealand First ultimately chose to enter a formal coalition with Labour, thereby facilitating a change in government, with additional confidence and supply support provided by the left-leaning Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand [28].

Thailand

In a remarkable turn of events in September 2025, the People’s Party —the direct successor to the now-dissolved Move Forward Party , and the party that emerged victorious in the 2023 Thai general election —forged an agreement with the Bhumjaithai Party . This pact saw the People’s Party lend its crucial votes to Anutin Charnvirakul , thereby enabling him to assume the role of Thailand’s 32nd prime minister [30]. This arrangement was made under specific, non-negotiable conditions: the Anutin cabinet had to commit to holding a nationwide referendum on constitutional amendments and agree to the dissolution of parliament within a mere four months. This highly unusual agreement materialized after the collapse of the Paetongtarn cabinet amidst the turbulent 2025 Thai political crisis . Scholars and political observers noted the exceptional nature of this deal, as minority governments and confidence-and-supply agreements were virtually unheard of in the annals of Thai politics [31]. What made this alliance even more startling was the stark ideological divide between the parties involved: Bhumjaithai represents a staunchly conservative faction, while the People’s Party is unequivocally progressive, its predecessor having been dissolved due to its controversial calls for monarchy reform [32] [33]. A key factor that compelled this “unlikely alliance” was a peculiar provision within the 2017 constitution, which restricted candidates for prime minister to only those whose names had been formally submitted by a party prior to the general election. This meant that despite being the largest single party in the House of Representatives, the People’s Party was effectively constrained to supporting a candidate from one of its ideological rivals, leading to this strange bedfellows scenario [34].

United Kingdom

Westminster government

Between 1977 and 1978, the Labour Party , then led by James Callaghan , managed to retain its grip on power through a critical confidence-and-supply agreement with the Liberal Party . This significant pact became colloquially known as the Lib–Lab Pact . In exchange for the Liberal Party’s essential backing on confidence and supply votes, the Labour government agreed to implement a series of modest policy concessions that aligned with Liberal priorities [35]. It was a pragmatic arrangement, allowing a minority government to navigate a challenging parliamentary period.

A more recent instance followed the 2017 general election , which left Theresa May ’s Conservative Party without a clear majority in the House of Commons. To secure stable governance, a confidence-and-supply agreement was meticulously negotiated with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) from Northern Ireland [36] [37]. This arrangement provided the Conservatives with the necessary votes to pass crucial legislation and survive confidence motions, lasting until the subsequent 2019 general election .

Devolved government

Confidence and supply deals are notably more prevalent within the devolved legislatures of Scotland and Wales compared to the Westminster parliament. This increased frequency is largely attributed to the use of proportional representation electoral systems in these regions, which often lead to more fragmented parliamentary outcomes and make outright majorities less common. For example, the Scottish National Party (SNP) and the Scottish Green Party maintained a significant confidence and supply deal within the Scottish Parliament from 2021 until 2024 [38] [39]. Similarly, the Welsh Labour Party and Plaid Cymru (the Party of Wales) entered into comparable cooperation agreements within the Welsh Assembly during two distinct periods: initially from 2016 to October 2017, and then again from 2021 to 2024 [40] [41]. These regional examples underscore the adaptability and utility of confidence and supply arrangements in multi-party systems where outright majorities are a rare luxury.

Notes

• [a] Otherwise, when it is proposed by the Government itself upon a piece of legislation, “the Chambers are enslaved in the exercise of their principal function just because it was thought that their being master of the fiduciary relationship were to be reaffirmed on each bill”: Argondizzo, Domenico; Buonomo, Giampiero (April 2014). “Spigolature intorno all’attuale bicameralismo e proposte per quello futuro”. Mondoperaio.net . Archived from the original on 1 August 2012. Retrieved 14 March 2016.
• [b] 18 Group and Akanat’s Group
• [c] Sakda’s Group
• [d] Sanphet’s Group