When Gordo Met Henry Clay

Gordon Brown's announcement to leave 10 Downing and step down from the leadership of the Labour Party makes the atmosphere more tense for the formation of a new government. Especially as, after a weekend of "cordial" and "productive" talks between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, one key hurdle toward the formation of a progressive Lab-Lib government is now surpassed. And what follows will likely set Britain's course in the 21st century. And it could be done by way of a "corrupt bargain".

Since Friday, the LibDems have been in earnest discussions with Tory leaders, hammering out common objectives for a coalition government to pursue in the midst of lingering European national debt crises. All three parties acknowledged that, following the Tories winning the most seats and most votes, they should have the first crack at forming the new government. (Brown remains Prime Minister until he no longer commands the confidence of Parliament, be it by a vote of confidence or their lining up behind a new leader.) However, even with those talks going on, some LibDems have begun reaching out to Labour ministers.

On the political spectrum, the centre-left LibDems, and their core of support, have more in common with the socialists-in-denial Labour than they do the Conservatives. Both want electoral reform, a proposal the Tories will need dragged through a bed of hot coals to agree upon. Both prefer further integration with Europe, while some Tory backbenchers could get away with defecting to UKIP. And unlike the Conservatives, both have sizable clout in Wales and Scotland. However, on the critical issue of the economy, the LibDems and Tories are quick to acknowledge the need to cut the government budget in order to curb a record deficit, and would seek to make such cuts. And both the Tories and LibDems want to revise the tax code, though they will likely have different desires on who benefits from such reforms.

To the core supporters of LibDem and Labour, Brown's lame duck declaration removes a major hurdle from the formation of a Lab-Lib coalition. (Granted, Brown's successor would not be formally selected until September at the latest, meaning he could take his sweet time packing the china while Portugal and Ireland go begging to Germany and Benelux for their bailouts.) And that could very well be a part of a bargain aimed at keeping the Camerons from installing a nursery in 10 Downing.

Supporters of a Lab-Lib coalition argue that Cameron, despite getting 36 percent of the vote and 47 percent of MPs, does not have sufficient backing of the electorate, as more people voted to ensure that he would not become prime minister. Indeed, the combined total for Labour (29 percent) and the LibDems (23.1 percent) would create a majority.

Precedents for such a block are few and far between in UK history, but in the US, one watershed election could fit the bill: that of the 1824 matchup between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. After no candidate received a majority of electors (William H. Crawford and Henry Clay also received votes), the election was replayed in Congress, where Adams, Jackson, and Crawford were on the ballot. Clay, despite coming in last, also happened to be Speaker of the House. As the story goes, Clay convinced his supporting states to back Adams in exchange for Adams appointing him Secretary of State (the post Adams held at the time). Thus Jackson, the war hero from Tennessee, who had the most votes and most electors, was shut out of the White House when a majority of state delegations (13 of 24) backed Adams.

Jackson vociferously alleged that the deal was a corrupt bargain, an allegation that, while never proven nor disproven, would result in Jackson's election to the White House four years later and bring about a sweeping new era in American History, as well as the formation of today's Democratic Party. Adams' supporters, many of whom were more opposed to Jackson and his populist ideals, would form the Whig Party, the front runner to today's Republican Party. (Although the parties were not related, the name is identical in etymology as the UK's Whig Party, who eventually became the Liberals and now the Liberal Democrats.)

If later today a Lab-Lib coalition comes about, Tory supporters and Brown bashers who yesterday celebrated the prime minister's act of political seppuku with an extra pint of Guinness will feel jilted like Old Hickory. And that jilted feeling, along with a sagging economy and what will be decried as a "coalition of losers", will only fuel Tory resentment for as long as such a government stands.

But Lab and Lib together will not surpass the 320ish mark needed for a majority, falling about ten short, and even their Ulster counterparts (SDLP and Alliance, respectively), along with the lone Green, won't put them over the mark. Adding the nationalist parties, with both of whom Labour have partnered in devolved legislatures in the past, will put them over the top, but there lies two issues.

First, a vast coalition of minor partners prone to fracturing, where assuaging one's concerns of support could wind up costing them another party's support. Second, with nationalist parties supporting the government, such parties will ensure that government spending remains the same in their regions, meaning any such cuts either occur in areas of solid Tory support (namely, the Home Counties) or they wind up not happening, setting Britain down the path of Greece.

Add to that the fact that whoever succeeds Brown will wind up being the second straight Prime Minister who never led his/her party at the time his party was elected to government. Voter resentment, although not as nationally uniform with regards to the expenses scandal, will only intensify, bringing about great distrust for all parties involved. Such resentment could manifest in the form of electing fringe parties, most notably the BNP or some far-flung idealist party like the Wessex Independents.

It is very likely that events that transpire in the meeting rooms of Whitehall today will prove incredibly pivotal in the economic viability of Great Britain and political future of all parties involved for this coming century. A Tory-LibDem coalition will set about modest austerity measures, all the while giving Labour a change to retool under new leadership (be it Ed Balls, Alan Johnson, or either the Brothers Milliband). A Lab-Lib-everyone-else-whose-name-doesn't-include-Conservative-or-Unionist-who-will-actually-take-their-seats coalition will inflame Tories, inflame a distrusting electorate, and most critically convey continued insecurity to investors still jittery about the Euro and a colleague's inability to discern a B from an M.

It's trying times like these that bring about historical characters like Old Hickory, those that will shape the destiny of nations for generations to come. Or it may just bring about another election right during the middle of The X Factor, with a few more down the pike.