Britain's historic coalition government, the first since Sir Winston Churchill led his nation out of the Second World War, may have been quickly hammered out as the world watched, but such a coalition government is unlikely in Canada, for now at least, say political players.

British High Commissioner Anthony Cary told The Hill Times that many Britons had their doubts about the viability of their new coalition government, forged between the Conservatives and junior partner the Liberal-Democrats.

The high commissioner said, the new government appears stable. Representing some 60 per cent of British electors, Mr. Cary said this government is "the best supported government we've had in many, many years." Establishing fixed, five-year Parliaments—which is expected to be the coalition's first act of Parliament—should see the government through to 2015, he added.

But the real guarantor of stability, he said, will be the detailed and comprehensive coalition agreement, which was hammered out in a remarkable five days and appeared in British newspapers.

"This is not just saying we'll hope for the best and cross bridges when we'll come to them: they have spelled out, in some detail, how they intend to cooperate," Mr. Cary said. "I sense that they're very determined to offer stability and be a durable government."

He added that what one minister said in the first meeting of the new, joint Cabinet may ring true: "Arranged marriages often work better than ones born out of love."

Some 17 months ago, here in Canada, the word "coalition" was cloaked in dark aspersions. In reaction to an extreme partisan action by the government—cutting public funding for political parties—the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois presented their tenuous coalition to the Governor General as an alternate government.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) shot back, painting the 2008 move as an undemocratic, socialist/separatist "coup."

These days, as during the so-called "coalition crisis" of December 2008, the NDP appears to be the keenest about forming a coalition government.

"Our party has always said that we're willing to work with other parties," NDP Leader Jack Layton (Toronto Danforth, Ont.)quipped last week. "The problem has been to find a dancing partner."

Mr. Layton noted Canada can learn lessons from the U.K.

"One is that the people of the United Kingdom seemed to encourage the notion that parties should work together in the interests of everybody. That's something the New Democrats have believed for a long time."

Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, Que.) said that while the Bloc "was not part of the [2008] coalition, we were ready to support them." He pointed out that coalition government has become the norm across Europe, and that willing major partners are a primary ingredient of governing coalitions.

"I think [the British] are often people who act in a responsible manner, which has not been the case either for Mr. Harper or Mr. Ignatieff, and those are the only two who claim the post of Prime Minister," Mr. Duceppe said. "They need to be responsible and to have leadership."

In 2005, the NDP and Bloc also signed a letter to the Governor General saying a Conservative-led coalition should take power if Liberal PM Paul Martin lost confidence in the House.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Ont.) said he's always been prepared to work with other parties to form a coalition, and that he hopes the U.K.'s new government "works." He stipulated, however, that the situations were very different indeed.

"We ought to be careful to draw lessons across the two systems," he said.

Perhaps the most glaring difference is that the successful coalition negotiations in the U.K. immediately followed an election, whereas the Canadian 2008 attempt did not.

Liberal MP Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Ont.) recalled that, back in 1985 when he was Ontario NDP leader, he helped end 42 years of Progressive Conservative rule by signing a negotiated "Liberal-NDP Accord." In exchange for the NDP's support for two years, the Liberals conceded some policy ground to their leftist allies.

Mr. Rae said there was nothing shocking about what's happened in the U.K., and that the precedent and lesson could well cross the Atlantic.

"I think what it demonstrates is that when you have an election in our system, you are electing a Parliament, you are not necessarily electing a government," he said.

"The coalition in the UK...is a new kind of animal and I think that is a very healthy thing."

In the congratulatory message Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) made to his newly sworn-in ideological cousin Mr. Cameron last week, there was no mention of the coalition or its Lib-Dem junior partner.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay (Central Nova, N.S.) told The Hill Times last week that it's a little premature for Canadian ministers to be dispensing advice on making the U.K.'s hung Parliament work.

"They're really into uncharted waters now," Mr. MacKay said. "In fact they have, I would submit, gone beyond anything we've ever seen in Canada as far as this proposed coalition type government."

Westminster experts in Canada and the U.K agreed a coalition government was less likely to form in Canada, for a range of reasons.

University of Moncton political scientist Don Savoie, who is also a fellow at All Souls College at Oxford, said British prime ministerial succession conventions are a little different than those in Canada.

"We assume the leader of whichever political party with the largest number of seats has the right to face Parliament," he said. "But Parliament has the right to decide who will form government."

In Britain this is not an automatic decision, Prof. Savoie said, giving parties a window of a few days to assemble coalitions.

"In Britain there is a long lead time and some negotiations between major parties to see if some sort of arrangement can be struck so that there's some assurance that when the government meets Parliament, it would have the confidence of the House," Prof. Savoie said.

Norman Spector, a former chief of staff to prime minister Brian Mulroney, said the smart politics and successful tactics employed by the Lib-Dems should be studied by Canada's opposition parties.

"I think the first lesson we can take from their campaign is that none of the leaders in their campaign excluded getting together as some sort of coalition after the election," he said. "And therefore what has happened has some legitimacy."

Campaigning on the prospect of a governing coalition could also lead to more gentlemanly politics.

"It may clean up some of the campaign, in terms of some of the dirty stuff and smear jobs," Mr. Spector said. "Keeps you from personalizing the campaign."

Annis May Timpson, head of the Centre of Canadian Studies at the University of Edinburgh, said the NDP would be wise to emulate the Lib-Dems, which campaigned in part on electoral reform.

"If there was going to be any kind of coalition building at any point in Canada, it's necessary for the smaller party to tap into some kind of public sentiment that then gets unleashed in the course of the campaign and gives it some viability when it goes into very tense coalition building."

But should Canada stick with minorities, Ms. Timpson said Canada has the experience to carry it through.

"You are quite used to minority governments," she said. "You've had a lot of them...and you know how to handle it, and bring about policy change in the context of minority government."

The Hill Times