National leader Don Brash has quashed any suggestion that his party could form a coalition government headed by New Zealand First leader Winston Peters [after the election later this year].
But the Prime Minister [Clark] said she was sure both leaders were "desperate and dateless" enough to consider such a scenario.
Their comments follow a report in yesterday's Herald which said MPs in both National and NZ First were informally discussing a power-sharing scenario in which Mr Peters would be Prime Minister - for half, if not all of, a three-year term.
The outcome would be possible only if NZ First held the balance of power after the election.
NZ First negotiators suggested such a power-sharing deal between Mr Peters and National PM Jim Bolger during coalition talks in 1996.
Helen Clark said yesterday that the same proposal was raised with Labour during talks that year.
Such open discussion of potential and past post-election alignments blows away one coalition myth: that these alliances are necesarily furtive, unaccountable and secret. Of course, what leaders say before an election may not match what they do once power is within reach.
But that isn't unique to coalition government: New Labour gave no advance warning about plans to give the Bank absolute power over monetary policy, and promised to extend 24-hour drinking in a 2001 election-eve text message. Trumpeteers of the accountability of single-party government take note.
0 comments:
Post a Comment