Does a promise mean anything?

They drop from the lips like drool, of well meaning aspirants for public life.

And just as they soothe our spirit with the sweet nothings of promises in abundance, they slink away in the dead of election night, only to re-emerge with explanations about why they can't deliver.

We all wanted Albo to break the promise to keep Scomo's stage three tax cuts, but that didn't stop tantrums over a broken promise.

Remember Julia Gillard's no carbon tax under a government she leads, or John Howards "No GST" pledge and farther afield, George Bush senior's broken promise of "read my lips, no-new-taxes"; a broken compact with voters rendering him a one-term US president.

Some promises are worth breaking, but not those on how you govern.

You will hear ad nauseum, pledges from our major party leaders, on how they will not do deals with the Greens or independents.

Of course they will say that, with hand on heart. But we all know its part of the game. Of course they will have to do a deal.

Short of the Second Coming there has to be a government in place after the election.

The trouble is, for a journo, you have to know what questions to ask. If they say no deals, then what do they mean?

In 1989 the major party leaders, Liberal Premier Robin Gray and Opposition Leader Michael Field, each pledged no deals with the Greens.

We all knew the likely deal would be between Labor and the Greens, but Field had said no deals.

After the election there were five Greens elected, Labor with 13 seats and the Libs lost their majority with 17 seats in the 35 seat House of Assembly.

So in talks between the Greens and the major party leaders it emerged that Labor would sign an Accord with the Greens in order to form a minority government.

So what happened to Field's pledge? As he explained to my good journo mate Mike Lester, for his PhD on minority government, Field said Labor would govern alone or not at all.

"In the heat of the election campaign, he (Field) had also said there would be 'no deals for government' with the Greens.

"Field says the last statement was misinterpreted to mean 'no deals at all' whereas what he had meant was that it would be a 'wholly Labor cabinet', Lester told me.

Ah, so the media fell for it. No deals said Field, but what he meant was no Greens in Cabinet.

Premier David Bartlett's government in 2010 in fact invited the Greens, Nick McKim and Cassie O'Connor to take two Cabinet positions, except they reserved the right to criticise Government policy.

In 1996 the Libs lost their majority but were kept in power in an informal arrangements with Christine Milne's Greens, mainly because Field was so traumatised by the chaotic Accord years he vowed never again, and actually passed up the chance of minority government.

The Libs trashed the arrangement and called an early election, because Milne wanted it to last so she could showcase co- opertative politics.

So, when you hear them say "no deals" you've got to read the fine print.

Do they mean they would rather pass up the chance of government and go into opposition rather than do a deal?

Do they mean they will do a deal, as long as the Greens or independents don't get Cabinet posts?

Do they mean they would accept a deal as long as the Greens or independents don't pull the rug out from under unless there is corruption or gross mal-administration?

And, do they do a deal as long as the terms of the accord or agreement is codified clearly so there is no misunderstanding?

There are all sorts of scenarios, so that you've got to nail them on precisely what they mean. It's no good crying foul once the counting is done.

A parliamentary term is four years in Tassie, giving ample time for you to forget what was promised, or just mutter away in frustration after they do what they solemnly promised not to do.

I guess we have to cut them some slack. Naturally both major parties want majority government and they would look slightly ambivalent if they hedged their bets, and said well on the other hand if we don't win a majority we might do this.

They would look decidedly wishy washy, so they have to plough through the charade of saying majority government or not at all, even though they don't entirely mean it.

From my experience leaders get quite testy when you press them on the permutations surrounding a hung parliament.

The script says stick to majority government and minders drum it into them to never publicly canvas any other options.

But you know these options skulk in the background, waiting for election night so the narrative can explode into a fireworks display of the impossible becoming probable.