The Door Only Opens From the Inside

David Cameron becomes the Prime Minister of Britain

The door of Number 10 Downing Street only opens from the inside. Today, it finally opened for Conservative Party leader David Cameron.

The deal-making with Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats isn't yet quite complete.

A few days ago, outgoing Prime Minister Gordon Brown resigned as Labour Party leader. Today, he resigned as Prime Minister.

"Only those who have held the office of prime minister can understand the full weight of its responsibilities and its great capacity for good," he announced. "I have been privileged to learn much about the very best in human nature, and a fair amount, too, about its frailties, including my own."

Cameron has offered the Liberal Democrats a full coalition government, with Lib Dems joining Cameron's cabinet. George Orsborne will assume the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, and William Hague will become Foreign Secretary, but other than that there are to be up to four Cabinet jobs offered to the Lib Dems, including the office of Deputy Prime Minister, which will fall to Nick Clegg.

"This is going to be hard and difficult work. A coalition will throw up all sorts of challenges. But I believe together we can provide that strong and stable government that our country needs," Cameron announced.

What David Cameron does from here on out will tell the tale of his government, and of his political future. Coalition with the Liberal Democrats will be tricky for Cameron to walk, but if he can manage the trick, he may yet be rewarded in a future election.

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.

Use Your Words, Heather

...Or maybe it's better that you don't

Writing in the Guardian -- the only place where she's able to peddle her political invective these days -- Heather Mallick has a message for Britain:

She despises Canada. So Britain should avoid being like Canada.

Mallick tells Britain that they should "use their words". She describes it as polite shorthand for: "Stop hitting your little friend, you tiny nasty animal. Negotiate. Share your toys. Find a way."

This is immediately preceded by her wailing about how Canada's centre-left opposition parties won't gang up against Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party, and refuse to share their toys with them.

"Use your words". The phrase takes on a particularly facetious tone when it comes from someone whose personal viciousnesa and vindictiveness is as well known as Mallick's.

One just has to look at what Mallick uses her words for:

"Excellent campaigning. If only our hateful pseudo-human Prime Minister would meet a nice granny in Kamloops and hurt her feelings. Actually, Harper would knee her in the groin and block her hip replacement, he's that personal in his hates.

Canada has a Conservative minority government right now that does have a core belief. It's that Canadians deserve a good stomping, all of them. Conservatives can't stand people, particularly if they're female, or second-generation Canadian, or educated, or principled, or not from Alberta, which is the home of the hard-right belly-bulging middle-aged Tory male. Watch them at the G8, ostensibly fighting for women's health internationally while blocking abortions for raped Congolese."

Stephen Harper is "hateful", "pseduo-human", and assaults the elderly.

Is that what Heather Mallick is trying to say here?

Conservatives are so hateful that they "can't stand people" (it helps that in Mallick's mind Conservatives are "pseudo-human", so themselves are not people), and are sexist fat old men.

(Unless they're Rona Ambrose, in which case it's acceptable to make sexist jokes about her hair.)

It kind of reminds one of what Mallick had to say in the column that effectively ended any semblence of revelance she may have enjoyed at the CBC:

"It's possible that Republican men, sexual inadequates that they are, really believe that women will vote for a woman just because she's a woman.

...

...No, she isn't even female really. She's a type, and she comes in male form too.

...

Palin has a toned-down version of the porn actress look favoured by this decade's woman, the overtreated hair, puffy lips and permanently alarmed expression. Bristol has what is known in Britain as the look of the teen mum, the "pramface." Husband Todd looks like a roughneck; Track, heading off to Iraq, appears terrified."

Republican men are "sexually inadequate". Sarah Palin isn't really female. She looks like a primped-up porn star. Her daughter is a hussy impregnated out of wedlock. Her husband is a redneck, and her son is a sissy.

Yep. Heather Mallick is a poster-girl for the civilized nature of the use of words. When she insists that the use of words is the act of the civil, everyone should take her seriously.

Not.

One imagines that perhaps Canadians should be thankful for one thing. If Mallick is going to insist on using her words, as they were, at least she's doing it far, far away from Canada -- in what seems to be the only news outlet that will actually print this kind of drivel.

In the meantime, she should feel free to count herself among Murray Dobbin and those desperate denizens of the far left who either have failed to understand that Canadians relected the Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition, or simply don't care.

It isn't as if she possesses so much of a shred of relevance. Any semblence of it she ever possessed was drowned in her own bile a long time ago.

David Cameron and the Puzzle of Measuring a Mandate

Pooled authority must mean a shared mandate

As Britons wait expectantly to find out who will form the government following May 6's election, the Mirror's Kevin Maguire has a message for British Conservative leader David Cameron:

You have no mandate for austerity. He writes:

"The progressive political parties – Labour and the Liberal Democrats, two parties united by much – easily polled more votes between them.

Cameron secured no mandate to unleash an age of austerity on those without cash to buy private education or health."

It's the kind of knee-jerk reaction that one should expect from the relentlessly adversarial left. One can see it right now in Greece: even as the state of their fiscal ship threatens to drag the bulk of Europe down with it, the Greek left rioted against austerity.

Maguire makes a logical error when he treats each vote for Labour and the Liberal Democrats as a vote against the Tories, as opposed to a vote for the political programs offered by Labour and the Lib Dems. It's a logical error frequently replicated in Canada.

Maquire assumes that neither Labour nor the Lib Dems would be prepared to tolerate austerity measures, despite the state of the British chequebook. Ergo, no austerity at all has been mandated by the 2010 election.

But the nature of the British and Canadian pstliamentary systems tends to cast doubts over such simplistic interpretations. The function of the Westminster system in both design and actual social function complicates such matters severely.

In the Westminster system, governance is assumed by the coalition that can best hold the confidence of Parliament. Such coalitions normally emerge from party caucuses -- in cases where no party holds a majority of seats, a coalition that can hold the support of other parties and individual MPs is called upon to govern.

In the most official sense, voters in a Westminster system directly elect a Member of Parliament. Their votes are also accompanied by an indirect function imposed by the institutionalization of political parties. Their votes count toward the accumulation of caucuses that will ultimately decide the government.

Voters cast their ballots diectly for individual Members of Parliament, and indirectly for the government and Prime Minister. Numerous dynamics can be at work within the kinds of decisions voters can make. (Citizens can vote in favour of a government by voting for, or in some cases even against that particular party.)

But the need for a government to be able to hold the confidence of the House of Commons means that the authority to hold government accountable is pooled amongst all the members of Parliament.

But in a system wherein the authority to hold government shared amongst all the Members of Parliament, then the mandate of government must, in turn, be shared by all the members of Parliament.

The adversarial nature of the Westminster system makes exercising this mandate cooperatively very difficult. Governments are elected to exercise their program as their mandate to govern -- opposition parties are elected to exercise their program as their mandate to oppose.

But under a hung Parliament/minority government scenario, government must become a collaborative and cooperative process. If the government's mandate were decided by popular vote, none of the parties in a hung Parliament would have a mandate at all -- unless it was understood that each party has a mandate of its own, as defined by the number of citizens who vote in favour of each party's program.

So for Kevin Maguire to assume that no mandate exists for any austerity whatsoever would be fallacious. In fact, 36% of British voters voted in favour of the Conservative political platform, featuring vigorous austerity measures.

Maguire's argument is further tattered by Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer Alastair Darling's promise to cut the British budget more deeply than Margaret Thatcher.

29% of British voters voted for the Labour Party. So it could in fact be said that at least 65% of Britons voted for austerity measures.

Regardless of which way Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats cast their lot in terms of supporting a government, one of the parties that promised austerity will sit on the government benches. Another will sit on the opposition benches.

Part of the government will have an individual mandate to cut the budget. The opposition will have an individual mandate to push for those cuts as well.

Only the Lib Dems will have an individual mandate to oppose austerity.

So how will the austerity question be settled?

Educated speculation from Britain is that Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems will have to accept some austerity measures in the course of an agreement to annoint a government.

The Tories wouldn't have an overall mandate to cut 6 billion Pounds Sterling from British budget. But nor would the Lib Dems have an overall mandate to cut zero, or increase expenditures.

In a responsible Parliament, responsive to the dynamics at work within the voting choices of Britons, a figure somewhere in between zero and 6 billion pounds should be trimmed from the budget, regardless of the protests of Kevin Maguire and the entrenched adversarial left.

Of course, negotiating a shared mandate amongst the various parties in a Westminster Parliament is, due to the adversarial nature of the system, not an easy task. It relies on a government and opposition that are willing to collaborate and cooperate.

Historical experience demonstrates that parties -- particularly ones from differing ideological camps -- are all too frequently unwilling to cooperate at all.

Yet Another Place Where George Galloway Isn't Allowed

George Galloway turfed in British election

A new place has been added alongside Canada and Egypt to the list of places where George Galloway is't allowed:

The British House of Commons.

In an election that has yet to produce a winner, it has produced at least one loser: anti-Israel firebrand and Hamas supporter Galloway.

Galloway was unseated by Labour Party candidate Jim Fitzpatrick. Though Galloway pandered and pandered to the Muslim vote in his riding, he was unable to hold on.

"The disRESPECT party has clearly suffered a huge defeat and that's another major positive from yesterday," Fitzpatrick quipped.

Galloway's RESPECT Party failed to post a single victory in the 2010 election. Galloway came in third. Salma Yaquoob came in second in her riding. Galloway came in third in Poplar and Limehouse, the riding he chose to run in despite being the sitting MP for Bethnal Green & Bow -- a riding Galloway's RESPECT Party also lost to Rushanara Ali, who will become Britain's first Bangladeshi-Briton MP. She also ran for the Labour Party.

In the end, it was the Muslim voters who decided to bid Galloway farewell.

“We say goodbye to George Galloway,” Ali announced. “We decided it was time to pay our final respects to RESPECT. Together we voted to end the division and unite the East End.”

Muslims gathered at Ali's victory speech were reported to have chanted "scum, scum, scum" and "out, out, out" when Galloway's name was mentioned.

It shouldn't be considered surprising. Galloway was assaulted earlier in the election campaign, reportedly by Muslims. Later in the election, Galloway himself was accused of assaulting an individual who criticized his stance on Iraq's Saddam Hussein.

Galloway's tenure as MP was one in which he spent more time eating cat food on a nationally-televised reality TV show and turning over thousands of pounds sterling in funds to Hamas than actually doing his job in the House of Commons.

George Galloway's defeat couldn't have happened to a better individual.


Update - It's pretty cool when you can outrank the RESPECT Party themselves on Google on a story like this:

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.

Green Party Leader Elected...

...And it isn't Elizabeth May

In one of the surprise results from the British election, Green Party leader Caroline Crocker has been elected to the House of Commons.

Lucas won the seat for Brighton Pavilion. The seat was formerly a Conservative stronghold that had been won by the Labour Party in 1997. Now it's a Green riding.

This ends Britain's streak, unique within Europe, of never electing a Green MP.

“Thank you for putting the politics of hope above of the politics of fear,” Lucas told those gathered to witness the call in Brighton Pavilion.

One imagines that, right about now, Canadian Green Party leader Elizabeth May -- who has elected to run in the riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands -- must be looking across the Atlantic Ocean and getting some ideas of her own.

Based on her performance in the 2008 election, when May failed to displace deputy Prime Minister Peter MacKay in the longtime Tory stronghold of Central Nova, one may wonder if any additional confidence imparted by Lucas' victory would be warranted.

Saanich-Gulf Islands is said to be one of the greener ridings in Canada -- most sympathetic to environmental issues. But in that riding May will have to confront another Conservative cabinet Minister, Gary Lunn, elected with a strong plurality in the 2008 contest.

Elizabeth May very well could follow Caroline Lucas' example by being elected Canada's first Green MP. But she should by no means count on it.

Unintentional Sexism?

We report, you decide.

David Cameron and the Puzzle of Progressive Conservatism

David Frum weighs costs, benefits, or ideological reform

Less than one year ago, David Cameron and the Conservative Party of Britain were poised to win an overwhelming majority government.

Less than a year later, on election day, the Tories have come up just short.

Considering how promising things once looked, many British conservatives -- and conservatives around the world -- many will be wondering precisely what went wrong.

Many will surmise that the British citizenry, having bequeathed majority governments to Tony Blair and Labour for as long as many Britons will remember, perhaps they've simply gotten cold feet.

As David Frum and John O'Sullivan point out, however, it may not be Britons who have fotten cold feet. Perhaps it's British small-c conservatives. O'Sullivan writes:

"The Tory party used to win about a third of the working-class vote with its conservative social values and patriotic instincts. For the Tory modernizers, however, these Labour voters are the wrong kind of voters too. David Cameron has spent most of the last few years resolutely refusing to highlight the issues of immigration, Europe, and national solidarity that appeal to them, lest such brutish policies alienate “soft center” votes. Just recently, the Tories have begun to talk about such things, but too little and maybe too late. Cameron will probably get a boost from these voters — and probably a larger boost than that going to the Lib-Dems — but still below what the Thatcherite Tories got in the despised 1980s."

O'Sullivan insists that the Tories have fallen short of a Thatcher-ish majority because they took too much time pandering to non-conservatives, and not enough time pleasing their base. Now, many of the conservatives who feel spurned by Cameron's public rejection of Thatcherism are either going to vote for more conservative fringe parties, or perhaps stay home altogether.

But Allan Massie begs to differ. Rather, he insists that the results of Cameron's leadership has been triumphal compared to previous electoral results:

"The assumption that an unreformed conservatism could prevail in Britain is questionable at best. After all, how did the Tories do in 2001 and 2005? Perhaps conditions were tricky for them then but while that’s true it’s also the case that the public has shown precious little enthusiasm for that kind of Toryism.

Indeed, it’s the failures of the past and that he inherited that make Dave’s task so difficult. If 2005 hadn’t been such a ghastly failure perhaps the Tories wouldn’t need to win an extra 130 seats to win a majority. In other words, they essentially need a landslide just to win a small victory. That’s what Cameron inherited and his critics might care to remember the abject failure of their kind of Toryism. If three thumping defeats don’t demonstrate that the Tories 'own original and successful coalition' has disappeared then I don’t know what does.

...

The anti-reform crew won’t let Dave win, regardless of the election result. If the Tories win a landslide they’ll say that they’d have won without reform anyway; if they eke out a small majority or simply end as the largest party then the reformers are to blame for failing to win a more handsome, sweeping victory."

As Frum points out, both John O'Sullivan and Allan Massie are speaking elements of truth. The situation currently confronting the Brtish Conservative Party demonstrates the risks associated with the ideological reform of a political party -- it's always a gamble.

One is far from guaranteed attracting new supporters under such reform, and runs the risks of almost certainly alienating existing supporters.

Cameron has famously referred to himself as a "progressive conservative". It's a feat that has been attempted before, particularly when John Bracken, the former Progressive Party Premier of Manitoba, insisted that the party change its name to the Progressive Conservative Party before he would agree to assume its leadership.

In the case of the Canadian PC Party, the experiment was arguably a failure. The party would govern for merely 14 of 74 years during which the party would carry that name before merging with the Canadian Alliance to become the Conservative Party of Canada.

In Canada, the gamble ultimately failed. In Britain, it could potentially be successful -- if only individuals like John O'Sullivan are willing to give it the opportunity.

Define "Full Responsibility", If You Will

Does "full responsibility" include resigning as PM?

As Britain chugs towards balloting in the 2010 General election, it's becoming increasingly clear that the Labour Party will not win.

It's equally clear that David Cameron and the Conservative Party will not win a majority, despite being poised to win a sweeping majority less than one year ago.

This has introduced an overwhelming amount of uncertainty about the country's immediate political future.

But fear not, Britain: Prime Minister Gordon Brown has already promised to take "full responsibility" if his party loses the election.

"I'll have to take responsibility and I will take full responsibility if anything happens," Brown insisted.

And as it becomes apparent that the Tories will win a plurality in the May 6 election, Labour's focus has seemingly turned not to trying to win the election themselves, but in trying to stop the Conservatives from winning.

"People should act with their heads and not with their hearts to make sure they don't wake up ... with a Conservative MP and a Conservative government," insisted Peter Hain, Labour's Secretary for Wales.

Yet under Britain's framework of Constitutional convention, Brown will not be compelled to resign as Prime Minister should his party fail to win a plurality of seats, and can attempt to continue governing unless defeated by Parliament.

That is the easiest way for Labour to keep the Tories out.

Which leads one to wonder what, precisely, Prime Minister Brown means by taking "full responsibility".

One thing is already certain: Brown's party will hold him fully responsible.

Manish Sood, one of Labour's candidates, has already denounced Brown as the worst Prime Minister Britain has ever had.

Sood insisted that Brown "owes an apology to the people and the Queen".

"What he is doing is basically making things worse and worse," he continued. "At the end of the day if he can't do the job properly, he should give it to someone else. It is as simple as that."

This led the chairman of the North West Norfolk Labour association to turn on Sood -- the constituency's candidate.

"Manish has been divorced from this campaign for some time, but clearly determined to get as much attention for himself as possible," spat David Collis. "Despite having such a dreadful candidate, loyal Labour members will continue to put the case for Gordon Brown as the best man to take Britain forward."

If Sood's comments were merely meant to garner himself attention, it's certainly worked; Sood's comments have made headlines across the UK.

But this only deepens the question of Brown's definition of taking "full responsibility". Having been denounced by one of his own candidates as the worst British Prime Minister ever, will taking "full responsibility" mean, for Brown, resigning as Prime Minister on May 6?

Considering the sorry state of his party leadership, many observers will rightly question his ability to continue as Prime Minister.

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.

Labour Party Chasing Away the Catholic Vote

If Christians swing British vote, Labour in serious trouble

In September, Pope Benedict XVI may be visiting Britain. Or he may not be.

The Vatican is considering cancelling the pontif's visit after reports that some peurile antics within the British Foreign Ministry managed to seep into some leaked memos.

The memo suggested that the "ideal visit" to Britain by Benedict would witness the release of a special "Benedict condom", and see the Pope bless a same-sex marriage and open an abortion clinic.

The Catholic Church stringently opposes same-sex marriage, contraception and abortion -- the former two to their detriment.

But one's views on the Vatican's stance on these issues aside, it's generally poor form -- to put it politely -- to lampoon a foreign leader prior to a high-profile visit to one's country.

"On these memos, it's absolutely despicable," spat Jim Murphy, Labour's Minister of State for Scotland. "These are vile, they're insulting they are an embarrassment, and, on behalf of the whole of the United Kingdom, we'd want to apologise to his Holiness the Pope."

For many Labour MPs dependent on a healthy Catholic vote, this issue could prove to be extremely dangerous.

With Christians potentially becoming a major factor in this election, which has tightened to the point of defying anyone to call a clear winner, the insult to not only the Pope, but to Catholics in general, could prove to be a fatal blow to many Labour MPs, making it even less likely that Labour will continue to govern after May 6.

If the Vatican announces that it will cancel its visit outright over the matter, this will be one tide that Labour will have difficulty trying to stem.

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.

David Cameron More John McCain Than Barack Obama

In the British Conservative party's second TV address, David Cameron seems to emulate US Senator John McCain, famed for his "straight talk" on political issues.

In the second address, entitled "What it Takes to Change a Country", Cameron promises precisely that: straight talk on political issues. He also further explains his "big society" vision.

Cameron proposes the "big society" theoretically as an alternative to big government. The goal is clearly to brand the Conservatives as the party that can still deliver on social policy-related goals while cutting Britain's looming deficit.

This will prove to be an especially important message as talk of a coalition government between Labour and the Liberal Democrats becomes more and more prevalent.

While Cameron's message is a strong conservative message, one challenge for his party will be the presentation. While the Liberal Democrat messaging has proven to be eye-poppingly slick, deeply engrained with symbolism, the Tory addresses have, to date, been (unfortunately) characteristically bland.

While those predisposed to be receptive to the Conservative message will likely pay attention to this ad, others may be more likely than not to tune out.

This was the same challenge that confronted John McCain during the 2008 Presidential Election: convincing Americans to stay tuned to his message, favouring it over the more glamourous message of eventual winner Barack Obama.

Obama reportedly once remarked that Cameron is more sizzle than substance. Now the notion that the sizzle may be gone is becoming utterly unignorable.

This has become the challenge for David Cameron during this election: preventing Britons from simply tuning him out. To date, he hasn't been doing himself many favours.

Panic Under Pressure

Labour feeling pressure from Lib Dems, not quite sure how to handle it

A few days ago, the Nexus asked the question of whether or not the Labour Party was feeling the pressure being applied by the Liberal Democratic Party.

As it turns out, they are feeling the pressure, as the most recent polls have the Liberal Democrats inching closer to contending for power on May 6.

The problem for Labour is that they don't seem to know how they're going to cope with that pressure.

Lord Andrew Adonis, the current Secretary of Transportation, has called on Lib Dem voters to vote strategically to prevent a Tory government, and has reportedly been working toward the establishment of a post-election agreement.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown reportedly sanctioned Adonis' efforts.

Then, he promptly went on the attack, doing whatever he can to try to sour that particular well.

"The Liberal Democrats have got to be exposed," Brown recently announced. "I think they have made a mistake in their economic policy. Why do they want to cut child tax credits? I think that is unfair. Why do they want to cut child trust funds?"

This, of course, should deliver something of a death blow to Lord Adonis' claims that the Liberal Democratic platform is "just like Labour’s." While Lord Adonis insists that the two party's platforms are similar in the sense that they're both social democratic documents, it seems that Brown thinks of this election as far less of a "two against one contest" than does his Transport Secretary.

If Gordon Brown does intend to negotiate a post-election deal with the Lib Dems to keep power, one has to imagine how, precisely, he will do it after having attacked their platform during the election.

Perhaps proving himself to be a true political heavyweight is more important to Brown than maintaining a coherent front with his Labour fellows.

But then perhaps the idea of a deal isn't off the table at all. As Canadians can attest, political parties can try some awfully strange things when the prospect of keeping power -- or gaining it -- is on the table.

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.

The British Conservative Party: The Party of the People?

 David Cameron promises to empower Britons

Typically, nearly a week is a long time to wait for a political leader to set the tone for their party's election campaign.

Five days into the 2010 British General election, David Cameron has done just that.

The Tories' election maifesto is entitled "An Invitation to Join the Government of Britain". It sets a populist tone for the Conservative Party's campaign, one reminiscent of that offered by the late former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.

"Real change comes not from government alone," Cameron declared. "Real change comes when the people are inspired and mobilised, when millions of us are fired up to play a part in the nation's future."

Cameron suggsted that government is actually powerless without the support of the citizenry. Therefore, the British people must be invovled in government as much as possible.

"Yes this is ambitious," he admitted. "Yes it is optimistic. But in the end all the acts of Parliament, all the new measures, all the new policy initiatives, are just politicians' words without you and your involvement."

"So my invitation today is this: join us, to form a new kind of government for Britain," Cameron said.

Saying this is one thing -- and certainly a great number of Britons will appreciate this message. However, delivering on this promise is another thing altogether.

Trudeau alienated a great number of his supporters when he failed to deliver on his promise of "parliamentary democracy". In the end, it became apparent that "parliamentary democracy" merely reflected privileged access of Liberal Party members to information about the decisions that Trudeau and his cabinet made.

The breaking of that promise -- closely tied to his promises of a "Just society" -- eventually led to a public perception of Trudeau as a disingenuous and self-interested politician.

Britons will have to wait and see if David Cameron actually delivers on this promise. He certainly couldn't do any worse than Pierre Trudeau.

Political Photoshop Challenges Done Right

Labour Party pulls off brilliant viral campaign

Many Canadians will remember the unimitgated, humiliating disaster that was the Canadian Liberal Party's "Anywhere but Copenhagen" photoshop challenge.

As the 2010 British General election slowly shifts into gear, the Labour Party has released some of the entries into its own photoshop contest, inviting supporters to mock the "We Can't Go On Like This" poster that David Cameron and the Conservative Party have released as their keystone campaign poster.

Unlike the Liberal Party, which embarrassed itself by publishing submissions that mused about conducting violence against Stephen Harper, the Labour Party has pulled this off splendidly -- in a sense.

Among the better of the submissions is this one, attempting to brand Cameron essentially as a Margaret Thatcher clone:

Naturally, the ad doesn't recognize Cameron's efforts to distance his party from Thatcher's conservative doctrines.

Another submission predictably tries to brand Cameron as a monstrous gargoyle, suggesting he'll harm a kitten if Britons don't vote Conservative:

While it's good for a cheap chuckle, this ad is far less effective as a political message. It merely tries to play off character defects that the creator expects viewers will hold.

It's actually remarkable that this submission, which brands Cameron as another coming of Tony Blair, was published at all:

While Tony Blair is unquestionably a liability to the Labour Party in this election, one would expect the Labour Party to publish anything that would implicitly acknowledge that.

While all of these ads will serve a vital function for the Labour Party -- solidifying its base.

However, with both the Tories and Labour having an opportunity to win this election, Labour can't afford to settle for its base, and these ads will likely have very little impact outside of the most dedicated of its faithful.

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.