There are no democratic obstacles to
coalition arrangements between losers, but it may have been considered political unpalatable.
(Although the New York State Senate and Washington State Senate technically had Democratic majorities, in both states
a coalition arrangement between several break - away Democrats and the minority Republicans gave the Republicans effective control of those chambers.)
Not exact matches
In practical terms, therefore, I see a considerable difference
between the two
arrangements, and quite strong grounds for guessing that both sides might opt for a pact rather than a
coalition.
Between 2007 - 11 Alex Salmond enjoyed a constructive relationship with, of all parties, the Scottish Tories (although both now prefer to pretend that didn't happen), and a similar
arrangement is likely during this parliament - there is certainly no appetite for a formal
coalition.
There's been lots of focus on how exactly these
arrangements might work, perhaps a formal
coalition between Labour and Nick Clegg's party — especially if Clegg is no longer its leader — and a loose, «confidence and supply» set - up, even an unagreed one, with the Scottish Nationalists.
Gary LaBarbera, head of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York, said the open - shop firms» stance on minority rights was «no more than a business
arrangement between them and the
coalition.
I think that the public felt the thing had come out of the blue as the result of some
arrangement between the
coalition partners and they didn't see why AV was such a big deal.
Presented with a decision
between a Conservative - Liberal Democrat
coalition and a Labour — SNP
arrangement, 45 per cent of voters say that they would prefer the Con - Lib option, compared to just 33 per cent who prefer Lab - SNP.