Britain's political elites are doing deals this weekend, trying to form a government. Gingerly making their way across the shifting tectonic plates of public opinion; wary of being tripped up again by voters.
For, let's face it, the British electorate are no fools.
As the governor of the Bank of England apparently warned last week, they are mad as hell. Austerity measures will not be tolerated, and will keep any governing party out of power for a generation.
So there is a lot to lose.
Voters listened carefully last autumn as David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party and his Finance Minister, George Osborne turned a blind eye to the reckless behavior of the City of London. They ignored the extent to which taxpayers had bailed out private bankers, and taken the full burden of their losses on to the public sector balance sheet. Instead Osborne implied that responsibility for economic failure lay with millions of public sector workers, and the essential services they provide.
In a politically disastrous move, Osborne threatened to punish the innocents with a 'new Age of Austerity' , while promising to give an inheritance tax break to the 3,000 richest families in the country. He vowed "to freeze the pay of millions of public sector workers, cut benefits enjoyed by the middle classes and cap civil service pensions at £50,000 a year."
As a result, and despite the fact that Conservatives were at that point 17 points ahead of Labour and headed for a landslide - their vote slumped.
Canny British voters refused to behave like turkeys voting for Christmas, and steadily withdrew support.
There then began a concerted effort to silence Osborne (it seems he was locked up in a cupboard for the duration of the election campaign). Nevertheless, the damage was done, and the Tories failed to muster a majority of seats in the House of Commons last Thursday.
Labour, under the leadership of Gordon Brown and to the surprise of many, managed to staunch the political wounds inflicted earlier on his party by his predecessor, Tony Blair. 13.5 million had voted for Labour in 1997 - in good faith. By 2005 and during 'the good times' when Britain was growing at 3% per annum - Labour's vote had plummeted to 9.6 million - which is why Blair had to go. He had lost the Labour Party 3.9 million voters.
Then, just as Gordon Brown took over the premiership, 'the world economy fell off a cliff'.
Economic failure, unemployment and the failure to rein in bankers cost Brown's government about 900,000 votes last week - fully 3 million votes less than were lost under Tony Blair.
In other words, Labour's lost voters were lost long before 6th May, 2010.
Skeptical of the Conservatives and fed up with Labour, voters turned their attention to the 'new boy' on the block - Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats.
Excited by the media spotlight, the inexperienced Clegg blundered, fell victim to hubris, and asked incredulously how Mr. Brown could "squat" in No 10 even if Labour came third in the popular vote.
In the event it was Mr. Clegg's Liberal Democrats that trailed in third place.
As quickly as they had risen, his party's hopes were dashed - thwarted by shrewd voters.
Nevertheless, Cameron and Clegg have grabbed the post-election spotlight, and are doing deals behind closed doors to forge a coalition, and force out Brown.
Many expect the negotiations to fail, for want of common ground - on for example, the cancellation of the Trident nuclear submarine, and electoral reform. So power-sharing is doomed to fail, if not this week, then by this autumn.
In the meantime, the real deal-makers are to be found elsewhere.
Across the Irish Sea. In Belfast, Northern Ireland.
The fact is that none of the political parties can afford another election campaign for the next year or so, and the Lib Dems and Tories are too far apart for a sustainable power-sharing deal. Cameron knows this. So expect the Conservatives to put in calls to the 8 members of the Democratic Unionist Party, in the hope that their support will enable David Cameron to govern as a minority government.
This way they would keep both Labour and the Liberal Democrats at bay.
That is, if they are not dislodged by the tectonic plates of 'austerity' - that could keep Conservatives out of power for the next generation.
Christina Patterson: Gordon Brown: the first interview since leaving office
The last time I saw Gordon Brown, he made me cry. It wasn't just the way he stood, a Heathcliff battered, but not broken, a...
Loading comments… 
a trend in general.
Dr. O. P. Sudrania
I don't know. It seems like he went from having no or little influence to now being a 'king maker,' in who rules the country.
Critical to point out, too: Despite getting 23% of the vote in the election, the Lib Dems only won 9% of seats.
This issue: Unfair voting leading to the dominance of two parties, is now front and center and on the agenda.
Nick Clegg has always said electoral reform would be a key point of negotiatio
We could use the Alternativ
The Lib Dems support the Single Transferab
So it's a 'bit off,' to say their party's hopes were 'dashed,' when, instead, they are reforming a central cause of unfairness in the nation's voting system -- and king makers for the next PM
Conservati
I am a New Yorker who was in the Lake District Cumbria the night of the election. I am often in the UK.
I can tell you that Cameron will pull together a party. Yes..there will be much friction, just as there is here.
Some posts in here say...they are just like us, well people, their government is elected and carried out nothing like ours.
Ann, is a Labour voice, therefore you are not reading an unbiased opinion. Sorry Ann, nice lady I am sure, but not a speaker of the peoples feelings or what they want. Cameron did win the majority of seats (better said...the MP's won the majority )..althoug
Please do not state that it was said that the rich were to get breaks, that is not a truth I am afraid.
Does socialism work?
Or does it collapse. Take a look...Gre
It is called Knowledge.
Not that it means anything but I would had voted for Clegg. I like what I read about him. It's a shame that the voting nite was ruined with incompeten
Good luck to your future. I hope UK chose the right leader it's unfortunat
They're selling the same tired conservati
1) The television media in the UK are heavily regulated and the Beeb, a state funded broadcaste
2) The representa
3) The US prime minister is elected in a separate vote that is approximat
4) There is a written constituti
It seems the English public has a greater sense of irony. Look at the legacies of Reagan versus Thatcher. Reagan left office a hero and remains an icon today. By the time Thatcher left, there were riots, and garbage, in the streets and while the Tories might still lament her absence, you don't hear many requests for battleship
Murdoch and those of his ilk might despise the unions, but there is strong tradition of supporting labour, and Labour, even in its diminished version, particular
Not hardly!
The BBC does not even have ONE conservati
They are however the largest news source in the world.
They are also a monopoly in the UK.
Clegg seems to have managed to play politics like it should be played (remember Jeremy Thorpe, for that matter, remember the SDLP, David Owen?) He got Brown to resign.
Most of all - remember where the real left is in UK politics at the moment; it certainly isn't with the Labour party. Labour is actually, remarkably
One way round this, without a freedom-of
What is being ignored on both sides of our isle (in Britsh politics as well) is all of our representi
Republican
Here is a news flash for them; We noticed!
For that reason our own election could easily be as muddled as the one they are struggling with in England. With Diebold thrown into our mix it would be foolish to try to guess which party might actually win. I wish the British all the luck in the world because the world has seen the effect of contested American elections. To put it bluntly: It ain't pretty!
http://www
Now we have the bizzaar situation of the smallest party wielding the most power.
http://new
but for the central government each of the three major parties got about one third of the vote to one quarter of the vote: 36% (con), 29% (lab), 23% (libdem). The council seats are entirely independen
What I found most curious, or most telling, is that the LibDems *gained* 1% of the votes, but lost 8% of the seats they held in parliament
The other telling thing from a US viewpoint is the much larger number of parties; it's still a 2 party system, but because of the smaller number of voters for each MP (it seemed like about 60000) local campaignin
like old fools?
An open e-mail to Nick Clegg
Dear Nick, if you are a politician of the same caliber as Gordon and David, then please read no further.
Still with me? OK then. Voting for candidates is no more than a smoke screen, deployed to prevent the people from accessing true democracy. In the same way that referendum
Which is of primary importance to our progress, polices or personalit
Thus policies such as I.D. cards and the like, might never again be permitted to absorb vast amounts of tax revenues before being scrapped.
Balloting itself could take place over several months, using automated counting machines in supermarke
Or, perpetuate a flawed system more republic than democracy.
As the governor of the Bank of England apparently warned last week, they are mad as hell. Austerity measures will not be tolerated,
Your article has just contradict
I'd argue for the richest to pay a bit more than their share on the basis that not only can they afford it - but they they with their wealth benefit most from living in society.
I can see no reason at all why the richest should pay the least !
Already took place over the weekend. Thing is, Labour need to make up so many seats that they'd have to invite at least one other party in, possibly the SNP or Plaid Cymru.
Well, yes, good idea to get the easy talks out of the way to start with ;-)
Alternativ
You could say I'd lost my belief in our politician
They all seemed like game show hosts to me
– Sting
That was then (1993). Today they all look like (and primarily are) buttoned-d
Still, there are "good cops" and "bad cops". John and Jane Q. Public know we're all subjects if not suspects before them. A "good cop" barely acknowledg
They are so insufferab
In the recent British debates Cameron recounted how his mother was a criminal court judge who had "helpfully
To his great credit, on this issue Nick Clegg pointed out the obvious: that, in sum, every criminal act reflects the failure of rehabilita
Clegg advocated – if too subtly and obliquely – for a paradigm shift in British politics to a day when the power elites aren't self-servi
Perhaps rememberin
In any event, British John and Jane Q. Public awoke from their exciting campaign to find themselves handed off to the garrulous "good cop" poseur David Cameron.
Abraham Lincoln said: "Nearly all men can stand adversity. But if you want to test a man's character, give him power."
Look out Britons: you are about to find out what this "bad cop" son-of-a-j
Eric C. Jacobson
Public Interest Lawyer
Culver City, California