British Tories Burying Their Coalition Partner?

Lib Dems to suffer in district re-draw

When Liberal Democratic Party leader Nick Clegg secured the Alternative Vote referendum -- already disastrous for his party -- as a condition of joining the Conservative Party in a governing coalition, there was one thing he himself had to give up:

He had to agree to the withdrawing of electoral boundaries, one in which the size of Parliament would be reduced by 50 seats.

After suffering an embarrassing defeat in the AV referendum, it seems the LDP may suffer further.

According to modelling conducted by Liverpool University's Lewis Baston, the Liberal Democrats stand to lose nearly 25% of their seats (14 of 67 seats). The Labour Party would lose 17 of 256 seats while the Tories would lose 16 of their 306 seats.

"The Liberal Democrats are likely to lose out more than the other main parties because their seats are yellow islands in a sea of red or blue," Baston explained. "Changing the boundaries is more likely to bring in hostile territories, their majorities tend to be smaller than Labour or Conservative MPs and their Lib Dems trade a lot on incumbency and constituency service. That is disrupted by a boundary review."

Yet Baston notes that nearly no seat would be safe under this proposed re-distribution. Among the Tory MPs who could face stronger challenges for their seats are Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne and 1922 Committee chairman Graham Brady. Both are of vital importance to the party politically.

Unless Prime Minister David Cameron is committed enough to this re-distrubtion to attach Parliamentary confidence to it -- although it's hard to see why he would do such a thing -- it's entirely possible that worried Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs may team up to defeat the proposal.

In other words, it could be the Tories suffering their own versin of the Alternative Vote defeat. If enough disconcert is stirred up, it's not unthinkable this could be the end of the coalition altogether.

For the Liberal Democrats, it proposes them with what may very well be a distinct non-choice: either bury the electoral re-distribution, and the coalition with it, or risk being buried themselves.

Lib Dem Council Leader Calls for Nick Clegg's Head

Ken Ball declares Clegg has let party down

With Britons going to the polls to vote on a landmark electoral reform proposal today, a prominent Liberal Democrat has called for Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg to be sacked.

The party took a vicious beating during local council elections, losing 168 seats, and control of two councils as of the time of this writing. By comparison, as of the time of this writing, the Conservative Party, the LDP's coalition leader, has suffered no losses (but has picked up no gains, either).

The local council elections have provided voters with the first opportunity to definitively render a verdict on the Tory/Lib Dem coalition, and Clegg seems to have suffered in the eyes of his supporters.

Chorley Borough couuncil Lib Dem leader Ken Ball has apparently seen enough.

"Nick Clegg has let the party down, he's put us back 40 years," Ball complained. "After these elections I hope somebody takes his place. He's been a bad PR exercise."

By PR, Ball doesn't mean "proportionate representation" -- which, for the record, the Alternative Vote recommendation actually wasn't -- but "public relations". {Duh - ed.).

To make matters worse, Alternative Vote -- actually a system of instant run-off voting -- seems headed for a resounding defeat.

Alternative vote was very much Nick Clegg's political baby. But in order for Alternative Vote to be defeated, Labour and Lib Dem voters would have to join Tory voters in voting against it.

Every Lib Dem voter who votes against Alternative Vote could very much be seen as a vote of no-confidence in Nick Clegg. If Alternative Vote falters, it's hard to imagine that Clegg could stay on as Lib Dem leader.

Ken Ball just may get his wish. If Alternative Vote goes down, Nick Clegg will almost inevitably go down with it.

Jack Layton Takes a Page From the Nick Clegg Playbook

Layton rules out an immediate coalition attempt

Even as the Liberal Party ramps up desperate efforts to make canadians believe Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party have a hidden agenda, Canadians have kept in mind who has the real hidden agenda:

It's been Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and NDP leader Jack Layton. That hidden agenda is a coalition.

Ignatieff has insisted that there is no coalition. Canadians have been having a hard time believing him.

But if Layton is being honest with Canadians following his most recent pronouncement -- that he will not attempt to form a coalition immediately after the election -- he may face the prospect of needing to find himself a new dance partner.

"There have been no discussions about that," Layton insisted. "[Harper] gets the first shot. The question will be: Is he willing to work with other parties?"

That's every bit as valid a question as the question whether or not the other parties are willing to work with Harper. But beyond that fundamental reality, it at least may seem that Layton is following the lead of Britain's Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democratic Party.

When the 2010 British election ended in an effective stalemate between the David Cameron-led British Tories and the Gordon Brown-led Labour Party, Clegg was effectively put into the position to decide the next government. There was a very strong caveat: British political culture favours governments that control a majority of the seats in the House of Commons, and so that party would have to partner with his Lib Dems in a coalition.

Clegg determined that the Conservatives, having won the largest portion of seats, would get the first opportunity to make a deal. They were successful.

Canada's political culture does not make the same demand. In a "hung Parliament" situation, it's typically been accepted that whichever party holds a plurality would have the opportunity to govern. Only once in Canadian history has the pluarlity-winning party been rebuked by a larger coalition.

Then again, Layton may not be on the level. In 2008, he was in touch with the Bloc Quebecois very quickly laying the groundwork for the spectacular failure of the Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition.

If Stephen Harper and the Conservatives fall short of a majority on May 2, it will be up to Canadians to hold Layton to his word, and at least give the Tories an opportunity to govern before trying to hatch a coalition.

And Now a Social Mobility Tsar?

Tory/Lib-Dem coaliton looking more and more like Labour

British Prime Minister David Cameron is a man with a problem.

A recent poll has the majority of Britons rating his government's performance as disappointing. In all, 57% of respondants are disappointed in Cameron's government.

Only 23% of Britons seem to think that Britain is better off with a coalition government.

The fair question may be: how could Britain be better off under the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition when it seems so much like Labour?

Case in point: Cameron's government has added to its stable of policy-advisory Tsars with the addition of former Labour cabinet minister Alan Milburn, who will serve as Cameron's social mobility Tsar.

It's important to remember that Cameron's government was expected to be different from its predecessor. While Britain still waits to find out how deep cuts to public services will be, Cameron continually subjects the populace to the parading of these Tsars.

No one would argue that the coalition shouldn't be concerned with social mobility. But the introduction of a policy Tsar is a clear indication of the means they are leading towards: less toward free markets and more toward state action.

This certainly isn't what British conservatives expected when they cast their ballot in favour of the Tories.

The problem seems to be even worse for Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats, who have seen their share of popular support cut from 23% on election day to only 16% now.

In the same poll, the Tories' own share of public support has dropped from 29% from 36% on May 5.

For the Lib-Dems, the matter is simple: their supporters are set to revolt against them for their role in the coming cuts. For the Tories, this drop in support comes from having disappointed their supportrs and -- to date -- governing too much like Labour.

Their fortunes may change as budget cuts are implimented -- but won't expand beyond their own base if they target such programs as milk for pre-schoolers.

In other words, Cameron's government is suffering because they have not yet governed like conservatives -- except on issues on which they cannot prevail.

Drawn Together

Tories, Liberal Democrats may be stuck together

Any British conservatives looking forward to the next general election as an opportunity to ride themselves of their Liberal Democrat coalition partners may be disappointed at some recent comments by Prime Minister David Cameron -- he suggests the coalition may continue after the next election.

"That will depend on how things feel at the time, but I'm enthusiastic about what we're doing because I think we are delivering good government at a difficult time," Cameron announced. "I think if we can succeed we can demonstrate that these two parties can work well together for the good of the country –- that I think does reshape politics."

Cameron steadfastly insists that the coalition has been good for conservatives, and that his government is poised to deliver 80% of its election manifesto.

"This is a government that wants to roll up its sleeves and get on with the job and deal with the big challenges we face," Cameron remarked. "I think this government is delivering. I know people worry, isn't a coalition government going to be a lowest-commondenominator government? I think we have demonstrated we are not."

"It's important that the Lib Dems feel and are seen to feel that some of the things they care about are being delivered on and they are making a real contribution," he continued. "I don't hide that, I celebrate it."

Based on this, it seems that Cameron is willing to consider the possibility of continuing the coalition partnership after the next British election -- which will be set via fixed election date legislation.

While this prospect may seem troubling both for Tories and for Liberal Democrats, it shouldn't be considered all that surprising.

After all, if the Conservatives and Lib Dems didn't intend to be successful with their coalition, there would have been no point in establishing it at all. If the Tories and Lib Dem coalition is successful, the two parties will have a common record to run on. Neither party could criticize the other without effectively criticizing themselves at the same time.

This shouldn't be mistaken for suggesting that the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition is an untroubled relationship. Cameron recognizes the challenges of maintaining it.

"The coalition is a relationship that has to be worked on," Cameron admitted. "It's a bit like a seesaw – there will be some times it feels the Conservatives are making the running, there will be some times it feels like the Lib Dems are making the running."

The prospect of continuing the Tory/Lib Dem coalition after the next electio shouldn't be confused for a merger between the two parties -- far from it.

"Of course I expect Conservatives and Liberals will fight elections separately," Cameron said. "We have different underlying philosophies and differences in approach and policy. But obviously if we are fighting a separate election after a successful five-year government, I hope we will be relatively polite about each other."

If Britons judge the Conservative/Liberal Democrat government to be a successful one, there may be a strong prospect that they may be compelled to continue after the next election (the other possibility being a Conservative majority).

The Conservatie Party and the Liberal Democrats have been drawn together. Depending on the judgement of the British citizenry, they may be stuck together for a while yet.

Electoral Reform in the Eye of the Storm

Former Tory leadership contender leads fight against electoral reform

When David Cameron successfully negotiated the coalition accord that made him Prime Minister of Britain, one of the key concessions he had to offer was a referendum on electoral reform.

In the end, not only did Cameron give Liberal Democrat leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg control over drafting the proposition for electoral reform, but he also placed him in charge of reviewing electoral boundaries -- effectively giving Clegg the power to, if he should so choose, gerrymander right under Cameron's nose.

Last but not least, Cameron announced that he would decline to lead a "no" campaign against the Alternative Vote system Clegg will likely champion, although he has solidly come out against it, and will campaign against it.

While no formal leader for the "no" campaign has, to date, emerged, the man whom Cameron defeated for the Tory leadership has begun to lead an insurgency against it within the Conservative Party.

David Davis has described AV as "ant-Tory", and declared that he will oppose the referendum itself.

"With AV, in times of trouble, you get oscillations of government rather than stability," Davis insisted. "You would have got [Margaret] Thatcher then Michael Foot, Thatcher then Neil Kinnock."

"Our current system almost always delivers a clear result," he continued. "It pretty much always reflects the mood of the country. You don’t want to replace that, as a result of some electoral deal, with something that may give us permanent instability."

The trouble with this argument is that it depends on how any one individual interprets "the mood of the country". People of differing ideological perspectives will always interpret this differently -- and the most demagogic amongst them will always seek ways to spin the available information to suit the end they desire.

Davis may have lost the 2005 Conservative leadership campaign, but a great many Tories are feeling increasingly uncomfortable with the amount of power Nick Clegg has been given to shape Britain's electoral system, with a minimum of Tory input.

David Cameron would be wise to take this entire affair back to the drawing board, and at the very least impart a stronger voice to his own party on the form that Alternative Vote will ultimately take.

It may not be enough to placate David Davis, but it's just the responsible thing to do.

Ed Miliband: The All-Or-Nothing Labour Leader

Younger Miliband monkeywrenches future coalitions in advance

With some recent comments concerning Deputy Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, Labour leadership candidate Ed Miliband has staked out some key real estate in the Labour leadership conest.

He's defined himself as the all-or-nothing candidate.

Miliband has accused Clegg of being a sell-out and a "crypto-Tory".

"He has totally sold out to the Tories - he's revealed himself to be a crypto-Tory." Miliband insisted.

Some may recall that the Conservative Party of Britain had campaigned on up to six billion pounds of budget cuts in their first budget. Many believed that the coalition with the Lib Dems would result in this number being reduced -- something that clearly has not been the case.

Miliband attributes this to a "macho" attitude toward the deficit on Clegg's part -- one that he suggests made a Labour-Lib Dem coalition untenable.

To make his point -- and perhaps there is one to be made -- Miliband has invoked the spectre of the 1980s and former Pime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

"This is exactly what happened in the 1980s under Mrs Thatcher, but this time you have a Liberal Democrat party and a Liberal Democrat leadership which is frankly in cahoots with this agenda," Miliband added.

These comments point toward Miliband's expectations for Labour in a future election. Not only does he expect that a Labour victory would be possible in the next election -- indicating that he plans a fast rebuild of the party -- but it also indicates that Clegg has no real interest in forming a coalition of his own with the Liberal Democrats.

In other words, it would be all or nothing for the Labour Party under Ed Miliband. Whether this is admirably ambitious or unfortunately brash has yet to be seen.

David Cameron Takes Hands-Off Approach to British Democracy

PM to stay out of electoral reform referendum

No sooner has British Prime Minister David Cameron given responsibility for a referendum on electoral reform to Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg than Cameron has announced he'll be keeping his hands out of the matter.

While he will likely work with Clegg to decide the date of said referendum, Cameron has already stated that he won't lead the "no" campaign.

He merely wishes the matter to be debated promptly and constructively.

“I see the case for getting on with this in relatively reasonable order,” Cameron announced. “This is one of the issues where we are going to have a healthy debate.”

Cameron is on record as being a supporter of the current first-past-the-post voting system.

“I will not change my view that the alternative vote is not an improvement to first-past- the-post, so I will make that clear at the time,” he announced.

Underlying all the discussion of this referendum is a disagreement within Britain's two coalition parties over when the coalition should be held. The Liberal Democrats seem to feel that their best opportunity for a "yes" vote would be May 2011. The Conservatives, who seem for the most part to oppose changing the system prefer that the vote would be held later than that.

Many Tories believe that changing the voting system will cost them seats. Others think that the party will be just fine, so long as electoral boundaries are changed accordingly.

Unfortuantely for the latter, Clegg is also in charge of reviewing electoral boundaries.

So Cameron understands fully that he's taking a risk in giving so much power to decide this issue to Clegg -- who has yet to announce whether or not he'll be involved in the "yes" campaign. (It's probably safe to assume he will.)

“This was one of the very important planks of the coalition. It is something the Liberal Democrats are passionately in favour of," Cameron explained. "The Conservatives are more sceptical about it."

But Cameron recognizes that this is just part of the price of keeping his coalition government alive.

“You have to understand things from your coalition partner’s point of view to understand the pressures from the party," Cameron explained. “I try to explain these to him. He tries to explain them to me. Soon we will be able to write essays about these things."

It will be up to David Cameron and his party to decide if the price of keeping Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats happy has been too steep. If Clegg is successful in sculpting political reforms to benefit his party, they may wind up paying through the nose.

Where Nick Clegg Fits in the Coalition Puzzle

Political reforms on the agenda for Deputy PM

A coalition drawn from as disparate partners as the British Conservative Party and the Liberal Democratic Party was certain to be quite the puzzle.

Sometimes, it's difficult to know where all the pieces fit -- particularly when a piece like chief Treasury Secretary David Laws disappears from the picture. Laws, a committed Liberal Democrat, had long been sought by the Tories. It must be disappointing to see him resign over an expenses scandal.

David Cameron likely had Laws' office pegged from the very beginning of the coalition. Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg must have been another matter entirely.

For those who were wondering where Clegg would fit into into the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition, they recently found out.

Clegg's primary task as Deputy Prime Minister will be electoral reform. He will be responsible for introducing legislation to fix the term of Parliament, further reforms of party funding, the establishment of a lobbyist registry, and to hold a referendum on reform of the electoral system.

He will also consider introducing a primary election system for the selection of candidates.

Clegg will also be handed responsibility for the Electoral Commission, Boundaries Commission, and Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. Not only will Clegg wield tremendous power over the establishment of new electoral boundaries, but he will also be responsible for helping establish the expenses rules that will prevent the disgracing of MPs such as David Laws.

The road ahead for David Cameron's and Nick Clegg's coalition will not be an easy one. But with Clegg himself in charge of satisfying some of the Liberal Democrats' premier demands, the road should be made a little easier -- provided that Clegg remains satisfied if his referendum fails.

David Cameron and the Big Society

British PM better defines "Big Society" concept

Speaking recently at an event at Number 10 Downing Street, British Prime Minister David Cameron further fleshed out the "Big Society" concept his party ran on during the 2010 General Election.

While sounding suspiciously like former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's broken "participatory democracy" promises, Cameron suggests that it will instead function more like Joe Clark's "community of communities" concept.

"During the election campaign I extended an invitation to everyone in this country to join the government of Britain," Cameron announced. "I said that the idea of the big society would be marching through the corridors of power – and it's happening right now. Today is the start of a deep and serious reform agenda to take power away from politicians and give it to people."

Cameron stated the importance of navigating public affairs away from the state and back into the hands of citizenry.

"That's because we know instinctively that the state is often too inhuman, monolithic and clumsy to tackle our deepest social problems. We know that the best ideas come from the ground up, not the top down," Cameron said, noting that citizens working together can better accomplish what the state cannot.

"We know that when you give people and communities more power over their lives, more power to come together and work together to make life better, great things happen."

As part of the Big Society initiative, the British government will launch a national service program for youth, help train community organizers, establish a Big Society bank (consisting of dormant bank accounts) to help fund neighbourhood groups, provide training and mentoring for local councils, and require police to compile and publish more detailed crime statistics.

Deputy Prime Minister Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg, who during the election campaign described the Big Society as "hollow" "fake change", voiced his agreement.

"We need radical change that puts power back in the hands of people," Clegg announced. "Only by bringing down vested interests and giving people real control over their lives will we build a Britain that is fair."

Of coure, diverting power away from the state and into the hands of citizens is a radical change from what most social democrats -- like those in the Liberal Democratic Party -- have often espoused.

In a global political era in which statism has been fostered even by many would-be conservatives -- famed me-too, big government conservatives like George W Bush -- the Big Society can't help but appear to be a noble experiment in better government through less government.

While there seem to be some serious wrinkles to be ironed out of the Big Society -- such as the appropriation of dormant bank accounts for the Big Society Bank -- the Big Society can lead to good things for Britain if Prime Minister David Cameron stands by it.

It Seems Unthinkable, But...

Alex Salmond and the Puzzle of Measuring a Mandate

Alex Salmond, SNP claim mandate for "progressive alliance"

In the wake of a Kevin Maguire insisting that David Cameron and the Conservative Party have no mandate for austerity following Britain's 2010 general election comes a predictable turn in the post-election wrangling over who will be Prime Minister.

Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond has called upon Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg and Labour Party leader Gordon Brown to join the SNP and Plaid Cymru in a "progressive alliance" as an alternative to the David Cameron Conservatives.

"There are alternative and more progressive options available if politicians have the will to seize the moment," Salmond announced. "The SNP and Plaid are indicating that we do."

The overture carries a clear resemblence to the ill-fated attempt to establish a coalition government in Canada -- although the separatist Bloc Quebecois was a more powerful element within that coalition than the Welsh separatist Plaid Cymru (who have only three Parliamentary seats).

The SNP and Plaid Cymru could put Labour and the Lib Dems over the top for a narrow overall majority -- something that Britons clearly expect that any government must have -- of 330 seats.

Altogether, Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP and Plaid Cymru received the votes of 54% of Britons. Culmulatively, that could very well be interpreted as a mandate to govern.

But as discussed previously, interpreting a mandate can be extremely tricky.

In an arrangement such as the one that Salmond is recommending, Gordon Brown would clearly be the Prime Minister. Without Labour's 258 seats there is not even the foundation of a government.

But one must ask the question of whether or not Labour can realistically be a partner in such a coalition, or if Labour would be the kind of partner that Salmond imagines.

As previously noted, Labour has promised to cut the public budget more deeply than Margaret Thatcher did.

As Nick Robinson points out, this poses a challenge for the very notion of a progressive coalition.

"An arrangement between Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP and Plaid could command a majority in the House of Commons (see the figures below)," Robinson writes. "The nationalist parties would, of course, extract financial and political concessions from Westminster."

But considering that Labour, holding the largest portion of seats in such a coalition, actually has an individual mandate for austerity, it quickly becomes apparent that these four parties would not possess a monolithic overall mandate.

Rather, such a progressive alliance would possess a diffuse overall mandate that would pit themselves at odds over key issues. The public chequebook is the most important of these issues, but only one.

Plaid Cymru, for example, has won an individual mandate to lead Wales out of the United Kingdom.

Just as Labour's austerity mandate is at odds with the individual mandates of the other three parties in the proposed coalition, so would Plaid Cymru's individual mandate be at odds with the others.

As Robinson notes, this renders such a progressive alliance inherently unstable. Clegg's push for electoral and political reform would be threatened by this instability.

"The key question Liberal Democrats have to consider is how stable such an arrangement would prove to be. Legislating for a referendum on electoral reform, staging it and implementing the necessary boundary changes could take over two years." Robinson continues. "So, if PR is the main goal for many Lib Dems they'd have to be sure that 'the progressive alliance' would last that long."

Moreover, Robinson notes that the electoral reform issue will bring some regional divides within Britain to the forefront.

"If it does come about it would highlight one little talked about but significant development in this election - the growing gulf between England and the rest of the UK," he explains. "In England the Tories secured almost 40% of the vote and 297 seats whilst Labour got just 28% and 191 seats."

Under such conditions, electoral reform could inflame regional tensions within Britain. Inflaming regional tensions while a separatist party sits within the government could not even begin to be a good or responsible idea.

It's on this note that Plaid Cymru's separatist mandate would challenge the Liberal Democrats' electoral reform mandate.

Whether or not Nick Clegg will opt for a "progressive alliance" will remain up to him. Whether or not he should is up to Britons to decide.

But whatever happens, such a progressive alliance could not claim to share a single mandate to govern. It's crystal clear that, within a Westminster Parliament, mandates aren't nearly that simple.

David Cameron Is Really Rolling the Dice Now

Cameron offers deal to Liberal Democratic Party

As the British 2010 election draws to a close with the Conservative Party up to 20 seats short of an absolute majority in the House of Commons -- that number could shrink to 19, but not nearly close enough -- many Britons have been wondering how long it would take for a deal to be offered to Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democratic Party.

Not long at all, as it turns out.

British Tory leader David Cameron has held his first offer out to Clegg, but is publicly offering few details on that offer, to date.

"I want to make a big, open and comprehensive offer to the Liberal Democrats. I want us to work together in tackling our country's big and urgent problems - the debt crisis, our deep social problems and our broken political system," Cameron announced.

Cameron is apparently prepared to tolerate the give-and-take that will be necessary to forge such an agreement between themselves and the Lib Dems.

"I think we have a strong basis for a strong government," Cameron insisted. "Inevitably the negotiations we're about to start will involve compromise. That is what working together in the national interest means."

The deal Cameron has offered could even include a full coalition for the Lib Dems -- replete with cabinet positions. Presumably, a national referendum on electoral reform -- focused around some form of proportional representation -- is very likely part of the deal.

But as a recent article by David Frum points out, Cameron takes a lot of risks by dealing too closely with the Lib Dems. If many British conservatives were uncomfortable with Cameron's ideological reforms within the party, dealing too closely with Clegg and the Lib Dems will be enough to be labelled a full-out "wet" by the stringent Thatcherites within his party.

In other words, David Cameron will run the risk of driving his own base away from hin. That's one way to ensure himself a John Major-esque reversal of political fortunes.

But even allowing Labour to offer a deal to Clegg and the Lib Dems would be gambling. Britain can ill-afford any more time wandering in the fiscal wilderness. A Labour/Lib Dem coalition would be unlikely to get the public chequebook under control.

If Cameron were to stand by and allow Labour and Lib Dems to continue to run Britain deeper and deeper into deficit, conservative Britons may never forgive that.

It would be foolish to assume that the decisions David Cameron will have to make in the coming days will be easy ones. No matter how he decides to roll the dice, he runs the risk of rolling snake eyes.

Liberal Democrats Fall Back to Earth?

Labour, Lib Dems statistically tied in latest poll

Up until today, the story in the 2010 British election had been the seeming rise of the Liberal Democratic Party to challenge Labour's claim to be the voice of the left in British politics.

Now, that story may be no more, as the most recent polls have the Conservative Party narrowly extending an already-narrow lead, and the Lib Dems falling behind Labour by two points.

Polls indicate that the Tories now hold the support of 36% of decided voters, Labour is supported by 29%, and the Liberal Democrats are supported by 27%.

Which would actually place Labour and the Liberal Democrats in a statistical tie.

Overall, this has actually changed little in this election. Britons can still anticipate a hung parliament after this election, as the Conservatives remain up to 43 seats short of a majority based on polling data.

With four days remaining before balloting on May 6, it's unlikely that the Tories can bridge that gulf, even with David Cameron dominating the final leaders' debate.

What will likely remain to be seen is who Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats will cast their balance of power behind -- if they decide to back anyone at all.

A Hung Parliament Will Hang the Government

Gordon Brown must turn election around, or resign as PM

With the British election chugging toward its May 6 conclusion, the looming near-certainty of a hung Parliament has Britons wondering precisely who will reside in Number 10 Downing Street come May 7.

With the most recent polls having Labour slide behind the Liberal Democratic Party for second place in this election, 27% to 29% -- with the Conservatives continuing to narrowly lead at 33%.

This clouds the question of who -- current Prime Minister Gordon Brown, David Cameron or Nick Clegg -- will be Prime Minister.

According to British Constitutional Convention, Brown would retain the office of Prime Minister under a hung Parliament, and Labour would receive the first opportunity to seek the confidence of Parliament.

That means that, if Brown can't turn his electoral fortunes around and David Cameron can't find a way to restore a strong lead, Labour could come in third in the election and retain government.

The tenuous position this would put Labour in could not even possibly give it the opportunity to govern.

For his own part, Clegg doesn't seem prepared to tolerate the prospect.

“It would be preposterous for Gordon Brown to end up like some squatter in Number 10 because of some constitutional nicety,” Clegg insisted.

If Gordon Brown continues to trail the Liberal Democrats after the election is concluded, he will have little choice but to resign the office of Prime Minister and allow another party to seek the confidence of Parliament.

To be the third-place party in Parliament and continue to govern is simply untenable on principle alone.

Gordon Brown Killing His Own deal

Nick Clegg apprehensive about dealing with "desperate" Brown

As a hung parliament looks more and more like the likely result of Britain's General Election, the balance of power is sliding more and more toward Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democratic Party.

This puts Prime Minister Gordon Brown in a difficult position. In order to retain power, he'll need Clegg and the Lib Dems to come on-board with his government.

As Nick Robinson points out, Brown's own troubled past with the Lib Dems makes such an arrangement very difficult, if not outright unlikely.

Brown has reportedly scuttled two previous promising deals between Labour and the Lib Dems. Brown even had a troubled exchange with Clegg over as simple a topic as expense reform.

In light of recent attacks on Clegg by Brown, Clegg isn't taking the matter likely.

Even on Brown's recently-adopted agenda of electoral reform, Clegg isn't taking the bait.

"I think he is a desperate politician and I just do not believe him," Clegg recently remarked.

He insists that on many topics -- not just electoral reform -- Labour had its opportunity to deliver and failed to do so.

"Do I think Labour delivered fairness?" Clegg asked. "No. Do I think the Labour Party, in its heart, has a faith in civil liberties? No. They are clutching at straws."

If the Liberal Democrats do reject a partnership with Labour, Britons can expect to see a tumultuous and troubled Parliament ahead of them. One wherein virtually anything could happen, including a prompt return to the polls.

Leaving Broken Promises Behind

In the Liberal Democratic Party's first (rather long) ad of the 2010 General Election, Nick Clegg makes a stark (and predictable) pledge to British voters: no more broken promises.

The ad itself is actually rather brilliant. In the ad, countless sheets of paper -- each one presumably describing an election promise made by either Labour or the Conservative Party (well, in actually, most of them are probably blank sheets of paper) blow about in the wind while Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg outlines his party's platform for the election.

Clegg insists that there have been too many broken promises not only in the past few years, but in the past 30 years.

The wind blows the sheets of paper all around in the background, as Clegg continually appears in the foreground, walking toward the camera, and away from the broken promises of his competitors.

The goal of the ad is very simple: Clegg and the Lib Dems want to counter-brand Labour and the Tories as the parties of broken promises, and brand his own party as the party for a fresh start -- leaving the broken promises of his opponents in the past by keeping its own promises.

The ad portrays British politics as a realm made by his principal opponents, as Clegg walks through streets littered with the broken promises of his opponents. But this may be an unintended message: the Liberal Democrats, after all, have governed Britain before.

The ad is also hampered by the vagueness of its message: merely promising "fairness" for British citizens. One can expect that the Conservative and Labour parties will also be offering fairness.

The Liberal Democrats may find that there is a premium on being a little more succinct.

Labour Feeling the Pressure As Election Begins

Lord Andrew Adonis begs for Lib Dem help ahead of May 6 vote

As the 2010 British General Election begins with David Cameron and the Conservative Party polling in majority government territory, observers of this election need to ask themselves an important question:

Is the Labour Party desperate? And, if so, how desperate?

Apparently, Transport Secretary Lord Andrew Adonis is viewing this election with a desperate plea to British voters: don't split the left-of-centre vote. In an op-ed appearing in the Independent, Adonis writes begins by noting that, unlike the Liberal Democrats, Labour could actually govern, and insists that the Lib Dems could help:

"Nick Clegg will spend the next month attempting to cast a 'plague on both your houses'. The truth is that the Lib Dems, for all their local opportunism, have national policy that is similar to Labour's. The difference is that Labour can implement its programme. The Lib Dems have no realistic chance to implement theirs without a Labour government. In Labour-Tory marginals, a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote which helps the Tories against progressive policies. And in Labour-Lib Dem marginals every Labour MP returned is a seat in the Commons more likely to put Labour ahead of the Tories and therefore better placed to form a government."

But even if this were the case, Adonis' argument absolutely begs a pivotal question:

Would the Liberal Democrats want Labour to govern?

Adonis seems to think that they should. In fact, as Adonis points out, Labour has a history of taking the Liberal Democrats' best ideas and implimenting them.

"Philosophically it is a nonsense to pretend that the Lib Dems – or the 'Social and Liberal Democrats' to give the party its original name – are equidistant between left and right, or Labour and Tory. The Liberal party of Gladstone, Asquith and Lloyd George fought the Tories relentlessly to introduce democracy and social rights. Keynes and Beveridge – Liberals both – produced the rationale and the blueprint for the modern welfare state enacted by Attlee's Labour government after 1945."

But Adonis' argument fails on one central point: the reason Labour implimented the Lib Dems' policy proposals is because they perceived the party as a threat.

And depending upon whatever poll one consults, the Liberal Democrats may be as big a threat to Labour as ever -- particularly with British voters expecting a "hung Parliament" (known in Canada as a minority government).

But many Liberal Democrat voters would be more than justified in asking themselves an important question: if we're expecting a hung Parliament, what would make us more powerful: giving our votes to Labour candidates in order to stave off a Conservative government, or as a large and powerful caucus holding the balance of power?

It's a question that Adonis declines to answer, although he does remind Liberal Democrats that the last government in which their party cooperated with the Tories was replaced by the Labour Party.

As the third party in any poll, however, it's clear that the Liberal Democrats will very likely not govern -- barring a miracle. So the standing question becomes this:

What would make the Liberal Democrats more powerful and influential? Electing a strong Lib Dem caucus on May 6 so they can play kingmaker in a hung parliament, or simply giving up the crown well in advance?

Lord Andrew Adonis has offered his answer, but it's a predictably partisan answer. Whether Liberal Democrat voters reach the same conclusion won't be seen until the voting concludes.

Cameron/Brown Showdown Set for May 6

Gordon Brown calls early summer election

The day any Britons who have been waiting for an opportunity to turn Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Labour Party out of government has finally arrived -- Brown has called a General election for May 6.

With David Cameron's Conservative Party poised to claim a narrow majority government, Brown has seemingly decided that the time to put his government on the line is at hand.

The issues at hand moving toward the May 6 vote are the economy, Britain's public debt, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (with an inquiry into the decision to go to war in Iraq ongoing), and almost certainly some Labour-instigated class warfare-styled politicking.