Quote

Of course, running a coalition government in a country like India is a difficult task. More so when Congress leads the coalition, since most of the political parties were anti-Congress. To have a coalition, to run a coalition government, you require a lot of adjustments, a lot of flexibility.

And under our system, much like you see in the U.K., of course, a party working with another party can form a coalition and govern the country.

There's no use to having the majority if you are going to be hamstrung by your perception of political vicissitudes.

Any coalition has its troubles, as every married man knows.

It's counterintuitive, but the most divisive arrangement is when the same party controls both Congress and the presidency, a situation encountered in eight of the past 10 years. With government unified under a single party, the minority has the least possible incentive to cooperate with the majority.

What I hope is in five years' time, I can go to the British people in the election and say: Lots of you doubted that coalition politics worked, but it has worked.

Individuals have little opportunity to get elected to Parliament under the label of the government party... unless they are in good standing with the Prime Minister and pledged to be cooperative.

The coalition is a model that has no place in a presidential regime such as in Mexico. It fits in parliamentary models, but Mexico has a presidential regime.

A majority is always better than the best repartee.

It is simply the view, and a view I think shared by most members of the party, that it is very difficult to have a leader that does not command the support of the parliamentary party.