Coalition

I agree with the sentiments of your question and certainly I'd much rather get a board of diverse directors to work in some sort of harmony than let Genghis take the helm for 5 months, followed by Mahatma for another 5 and then Fidel, but, being forced into a box together, with no obvious common goal or cause and with your followers snapping at your heels to steer it this way & that, I'm not confident they are grown up enough to see the bigger picture. 

Have to say, I'd have more confidence if it were 3 women.

As with most of the animal kindom, we tend to need some sort of overarching threat or calamity to bring out the "all for one & one for all" side of our genes.  Shame but that's why we are here and why Darwin has a lot to answer for.

I'd rather have a pot luck tick box

Have to say, I'd have more confidence if it were 3 women.

Posted by Paul Scholes on Wed, 28/04/2010 - 16:33

And you think you could find 2 women who could have stood up to Maggie ????????

Why do you think she surrounded herself with wethers?

Interesting point implied in the original post - that in fact, no-one votes for a coalition, unless the tie-up is agreed before the election and 'coalition' candidates are fielded (a la Conservatives/UUP in NI).

As it is, any coalition will be probably less democratic (or should that be "more undemocratic") than a traditional single winner - deals behind closed doors and with potentially a party with a much smaller share of the vote deciding who gets into government.

I don't know about others here, but from talking to local business contacts it seems everyone is holding off big decisions until after the election (and if it's a hung parliament, maybe longer) - and that includes start-ups, etc.