Australia's election results reveal the desire for a coalition government. David Cameron came to power on a coalition in Britain. We can do this. Harper lied about the legitimacy of such a move, despite the fact that he tried to do the same thing himself in 2004.
This is not a merging of parties, only a pre-election agreement that they will join forces, after the election.
Can you imagine being able to select a dream cabinet from the best of the House. There are many in all parties who could do so much for this country, and without the toxic partisanship, we might have some hope in moving forward with such things as climate change.
People who may have been persuaded by the first blast of the Tory Rage Machine's hysterical response to the coalition idea have now had a little time to think about how our Parliamentary democracy really works, and how they've observed it working elsewhere. Moreover, they’ve also had nearly two additional years to see Harper in action. It's been -- and continues to be -- an educational experience.
As a result, going into the next federal general election, Canadians have had their consciousness raised about Parliamentary coalitions. Sure, lots of folks will still be opposed. And the Rage Machine will still scream at us that coalitions are an outrage. But Canadians have had a couple of years to ponder what really happened 2008, and what could have. It seems likely, in these circumstances alone, that many more voters than not will have moved from the anti-coalition camp to the group that is at least prepared to consider the idea.
What's more, going into an election that could result in a coalition from the get-go is different from being surprised by the idea a few days after what you'd thought was a foregone conclusion.