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.

Because it had to be done…

With apologies to the Chicago Tribune:

Cameron's keys to 10 Downing are somewhere in Belfast

Polls in the UK are set to open in a matter of hours, and every paper not named Mirror, Guardian, Observer, and Independent is encouraging or all but encouraging their readers to vote Conservative. Only one paper (Mirror) remains supportive of Labour, but is encouraging tactical voting to push Lib Dem candidates in marginal seats with the Tories to prevent David Cameron from moving into 10 Downing.

As the Conservatives figure out what shade of blue carpet to install, they still need to get the keys to 10 Downing (and make sure today's front page for The Sun isn't followed by "CAMERON DEFEATS BROWN"). And rather than Buckingham Palace, where the next prime minister will formally receive the consent of the Queen to form the next government, Cameron will likely need to travel to Ireland.

Of course by Ireland, I mean Northern Ireland, where any seat not won by the Social Democrat & Labour Party or Alliance Party (the latter unlikely to win any) helps the Conservatives. For every two seats claimed by Sinn Féin, the Conservative target is lowered by one. Because Sinn Féin's members will not take their seats in Parliament, they technically can't vote against Cameron forming a government, nor can they vote for any government that'll be perfectly happy to let Ulster leave the UK & unite with the lower 26 counties that comprise the Republic of Ireland.

Additionally, the Conservatives have a firm affiliation with the Ulster Unionist Party. Any UUP candidate elected to Parliament will be expected to support a Conservative government. Problem is that the last time the Tories were in power, the UUP were the main Unionist party in Northern Ireland. Since 1997, the Democratic Unionist Party (who could essentially qualify as Europe's flagship chapter of the Sarah Palin Fan Club) have supplanted the UUP in that role. Worse, the UUP have no incumbents in the House of Commons, as their lone MP left the party and is contesting the race as an independent. Also part of Cameron's Ulster keychain is a likely gain on the border with the ROI: an independent pro-Tory candidate in the constituency of Fermanagh and South Tryone, Rodney Connor, is looking to reclaim this seat with the help of the Tories and both Unionist parties.

The ultimate notch on Cameron's key will come from the DUP, whom Cameron was assailing during a visit Tuesday to Belfast. Cameron, of course, was hoping to sway Unionist & non-sectarian votes to the UUP from DUP, who under the Robinsons have been dogged by scandals involving the typical political trip-ups of sex, money and power. (Sinn Féin didn't come off much better in the expenses scandal, somehow having six-figure access to the Queen's purse strings despite refusing to swear allegiance to her!) But with the DUP likely to remain the fourth largest party in the House of Commons, it would be tactically foolish to dismiss their MPs if they're needed to ensure a majority-backed government.

The Conservatives and UUP, after accounting for Sinn Féin's absentions and the four mandatory non-aligned seats that account for the Speaker and his three deputies, will need anywhere from 320 to 324 MPs for an outright majority. If they find themselves within 10 of that number, they will need to be ready to make concessions to Peter Robinson, especially as he is first minister of Northern Ireland. Those concessions, naturally, will be favourable to Ulster, meaning any drastic cuts a Cameron government will pursue will wind up occurring in greater number to Wales, Scotland, and north of the M62.

While eyes will be focused on three-way races, marginals, and bellwethers, eventually the key to 10 Downing will be found sitting somewhere in Stormont.

Off-mic may not be the best time to Give 'Em Hell

During his whistlestop speech in Harrisburg, Illinois, one of Harry Truman's supporters shouted to him "Give 'Em Hell, Harry!", to which he replied: "I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell." At least Truman had the courage to do so in their face and not from the comfort of a limo driving away before disconnecting his hot microphone.

As a result, this will be the picture (via the BBC) that will perhaps symbolise the practical end of Gordon Brown's political career: (barring a dramatic turn of events that would easily eclipse Truman '48)

This photo is of Brown listening to a replay of his comments on BBC Radio 2's noon news programme hosted by Jeremy Vine. During his visit, Brown expressed great remorse for his comments and later apologised to the woman he accused of being "bigoted".

As has been reported on both sides of the pond (because American media love to jump on quips like this, thank you very much TMZ), Gordon Brown was meeting residents in Rochdale, a town just north of Manchester, when he received a question from Gillian Duffy, a 65-year-old woman who (until recently) was a lifelong supporter of Labour. Duffy, who said she was only out to buy some bread, is now being seen as the catalyst of what could be the final nail in the coffin of Labour's chances of winning the election.

Her question? Immigration, specifically concerning the influx of people from Eastern Europe. Many of those nations are in the EU, meaning persons from Poland, the Baltic States, Romania, and others can relocate to the UK in almost the same manner someone can move from West Virginia to Iowa. While Brown attempted to point the finger at the media and staffers for not giving Brown the chance to answer the question, he didn't seem interested to answer it on that Radio 2 clip either. (And given what's going down in Arizona, with the prospect of it happening in other states soon, this question really needed answered.)

The gaffe (and now worst-yet breakout of Foot-In-Mouth Disease) could overshadow Brown's performance, and perhaps any worthwhile discussion, during this evening's debate in Birmingham on the BBC. (And, it won't be an opportunity for the SNP to waste most of the UK's time, as a judge in Edinburgh denied SNP's request to require the BBC to include them or block the transmission in Scotland, saying that their filing, "lacks the requisite precision and clarity."

On the bright side, it's been five minutes and Russia's still standing.

Don Quixote and Kanye want shot down by Dewey on live TV

The final UK leaders debate is two days away (and I just might be able to catch the durn thing live on C-SPAN!), but the BBC is on the defensive again as to their decision to limit the debate to the Westminster Three.

Tomorrow morning a judge in Edinburgh will hear a legal challenge from the Scottish National Party, who allege that BBC's exclusion (plus that of Sky News & ITV) is "utterly unfair". The SNP, who already participated in two Scotland-specific debates with the Conservatives, Labour, and the Liberal Democrats, raised £50,000 ($75,000) to mount the legal challenge, seeking to either force the BBC to include the SNP in their lineup for Thursday. Not to be outdone, UKIP leader Lord Pearson (who is a member of the House of Lords and thus doesn't have to worry too much about his job security come 6 May) is threatening a similar challenge.

At the moment, these two parties combine for one-third of the seats in the Scottish Parliament, 14 seats in the European Parliament, seven in the House of Commons, and two in the House of Lords. In this election, SNP are running in all 59 of Scotland's constituencies but none south of the border, while UKIP are contesting 563 races in Britain. And following the bounce the LibDems have received across the UK following Nick Clegg's dominating performances in the first two debates (at the expense of SNP as well as Labour in Scotland), both parties are wanting a similar bounce from such an appearance.

As I've said in the past, SNP and Plaid Cymru are welcome to debate before all the UK if they're more interested in running all the UK than seceding from it. And frankly, if the ruling does go SNP's way, expect the bloviating lame-duck Man of La Mancha himself to essentially waste the time of everyone not north of Hadrian's Wall, and a door swung open where every piddly-diddly party could petition their way onto the debate, making the entire event a practical farce and logistical nightmare.

With regards to UKIP, they are contesting more than half the seats in the UK, and should have been pursuing already, claiming their representation in the House of Lords, European Parliament, and several local councils. If UKIP were able to do that (and they should have done it last week, as that debate was focused on foreign affairs; this week's will be principally the economy), that would give the Greens and BNP a podium as well. A successful petition by UKIP would likely give their former leader Nigel Farage a boost in his bid to unseat the Commons Speaker John Bercow in his Buckingham constituency.

Fancy a flight to Fulton soon, Mr Prime Minister?

It sounds like I don't have to resort to photoshopping Thomas Dewey's moustache on a picture of David Cameron or creating a mock Sun headline for 7 May to confirm Labour's desire to make this election akin to Truman's underdog victory.

In his closing statement during Thursday's debate (hosted by Sky News in Bristol), Gordon Brown opened with Truman's famous four-word maxim, “The Buck Stops Here.” Earlier, in an effort to present an assertive image (which countered his conciliatory approach in the first debate), Brown channelled Harry by saying in his opening statement: “If this election is about style and PR points, count me out. If it's about the big decisions, if it's about judgement . . . I'm your man.”

Despite the “substance” where Brown had hoped to score points—arguments presented on Britain's foreign affairs and three-way arguments about the EU, Trident nuclear submarines, and immigration—several opinion polls have relegated the current ruling party to third place. In spite of trailing the Tories and LibDems each by four points (as pointed out in this pie chart from the Labour-backing Daily Mirror), Labour could still walk away with a plurality of seats come 6 May, given the eccentricities of the first-past-the-post system that has been part of the voting landscapes for the UK & much of the US the past two centuries.

If that happens, the LibDems will have no part in a coalition government headed by Labour. Party leader Nick Clegg made that clear during his appearance on BBC One's The Andrew Marr Show today, adding he would expect to be Prime Minister if his party received more votes than Labour and Labour wanted to establish a Lib-Lab coalition. Meanwhile, as Labour attempts to channel the spirit of a certain crooner from Graceland, Tory rhetoric now shows signs of slowly opening up to the prospect of a coalition with the LibDems.

With the tide remaining against Labour, perhaps the song “Suspicious Minds” would be an accurate description of much the UK electorate's feeling toward them. And despite claiming substance over style, Labour have been quick to roll out the red carpet, utilising longtime celebrity supporters Eddie Izzard and David Tennant in their party broadcasts. But the Prime Minister has one thing going right for him – he's channelling one of the greatest underdog successes of 20th century politics. And with Clegg going so far as to call Labour irrelevant, Brown just might want his supporters to shout another four-word phrase to propel him into Thursday's debate in the Midlands:

“Give 'Em Hell, Gordon.”

If that doesn't work for him, he'll have plenty of time to embark on a lecture tour starting at Westminster College in Fulton. It'll be a perfect starting point for Brown, not only because it's where a certain leader of the opposition delivered one of the most poignant speeches of the 20th century, but as the son of a Presbyterian preacher, Brown will feel right at home on a Presbyterian college campus.

The Courtship of Nick Clegg

In what could be the first time since Welshman David Lloyd George was Prime Minister, a Liberal party is at the top of the polls. Granted, it's a pollster working for the Tory-leaning Sun (as reported by the Telegraph, linked instead) and not the actual election, but still: the spike in the polls stemming from Thursday's inaugural TV debate has catapulted the distant third party into a viable candidate for coalition government member and even, depending on how individual LibDem candidates capitalise on their party leader's boost, lead party in a coalition government.

Already a recent Sunday Times polls suggests that Clegg, who is running for just his second term in the only Sheffield constituency not controlled by Labour, is the most popular party leader in the UK since Sir Winston Churchill. And now the media scrutiny, as well as that of the beleaguered governing Labour Party and the destined-for-Dewey '48 Conservative Party, is on the LibDem manifesto: one which professes greater integration with the European Union and substantially decreasing Britain's nuclear arsenal. But as Gordon Brown and David Cameron point their slingshots away from each other and instead aim at Clegg, their underlings are quick to work Fleet Street to respond to the practical inevitability of a hung parliament.

Not long after Clegg's victory in the first debate, Home Secretary Alan Johnson repeated to the Times Labour's assertion that the LibDems are best suited for a coalition government with Labour in the event of a hung parliament. The Tories, on the other hand, contend that voting for the LibDems will only help Labour hang on should it come to a hung parliament, even if the Tories gain more seats and Labour wind up with third overall in terms of the popular vote.

No matter the outcome of the 2010 election, Clegg has become the face of this election, but it won't be him alone who will bring about a monumental surge for the LibDems that will shatter the swingometers and upend my Truman '48 analogies. This Tuesday, the three major parties will face off against their nationalist counterparts, Wales' Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party, in televised debates specific to the respective nations. Particularly in Scotland, the LibDems have a strong presence, led by Tavish Scott, while in Wales the LibDem's five Assembly Members are led by Kirsty Williams. For the Conservatives to avoid alienating the LibDems in the event their support is needed for a coalition government, they must hope for enough Scottish and Welsh voters, disgruntled with nationalist agendas, to at least switch their allegiance to LibDem if not Conservative.

Four words that just doomed Labour

(Note: I would have loved to post this sooner; however, other commitments precluded me from live-blogging this. A Tweet-delayed version can be found by reading my past 100 Tweets or so.)

Anyone who wanted to make a drinking game out of stuff said in Thursday's first-ever debate between the UK's major party leaders would have stumbled out of the pub, along with Labour's chances of regaining a majority of seats in Parliament, by way of these four words:

“I agree with Nick.”

On at least three occasions Gordon Brown said that very phrase when responding to Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg's points on elderly care, right to recall corrupt MPs, and attacking David Cameron's call to set a quota for immigration. Those four words, along with Clegg's assertive and natural performance (which many are comparing to Jack Kennedy) against the typical Labour-Conservative squabbling that's marked Westminster politics since the end of World War II, made him stand out the most in this watershed event. And opinion polls are showing it: The Times has 61% of those surveyed declaring Clegg the winner, with Cameron and Brown each only getting one in five.

This first debate took place in Manchester, long a Labour stronghold as a cog in the industrial machine that propelled Britain into the world's pre-eminent empire of the 19th and early 20th century.

Does your bellwether go "Woo, Pig! Sooiee!"?

This farmer in Kent hopes his porcine racers will be accurate in picking the next Prime Minister. (From the BBC South East.)

The Kentish Bellwether?

Prime Minister Gordon Brown officially kicked off his re-election campaign, not from the steps of 10 Downing or his figurative front porch in Kirkcaldy, but in a plush first-class car on Southeastern's High Speed Train One through the North Downs of Kent.

Relying on the 21st century's version of a whistle stop tour, Brown made known the importance of gaining the votes of constituencies along the Thames estuary. This morning's Observer features an analysis of Brown's first campaign tour on Tuesday. From the neighbourhoods and storefronts spread along the Essex & Surrey banks of south and east London, to the estuary towns on the Medway and Channel coast, the key to gaining the mandate for the next government, be it by outright majority or the main party in a hung parliament.

Many of these constituencies – Hammersea, Dartford, Hastings and Rye, Chatham and Aylesford, Dover — Tony Blair's New Labour surprisingly picked up when they handed John Major the worst loss for the Conservatives in 91 years. And these seats, along with several others identified by The Times as seats the Tories must win for David Cameron to outright call 10 Downing home, form what could be one of several candidates for the title "Bellwether of Britain". Much like Missouri and Ohio for US elections, these South East constituencies embody much of what encompasses "Middle Britain": a mix of post-industrial towns that still support Labour, rural villages that embrace Conservatives, and a pool of university-educated youth eager to support the Liberal Democrats or any third party they deem virtuous of their vote (especially the Greens in the case of Brighton Pavilion). In these constituencies, families are looking for answers to pressing issues like the economy, immigration, and integration with the EU, looking for the future MP that will be happy to answer to and serve their neighbours and communities in Westminster.

So are the marginal constituencies of Kent, the fabled Garden of England, a viable candidate to be the Bellwether of England? Perhaps. Working in its favour is Dartford, site of the critical Thames crossing that (by way of the A282) completes the M25 beltway around London. Since 1964, Dartford's MP has always been with the party that formed the majority. And following the ill-conceived urban design patterns of the American suburb, Kent and its many commuter routes has slowly evolved into a coastal chain of exurban towns just over an hour away from London. These marginal constituencies could be recited in the same breath as Gladstone, Mo., Bala Cynwyd, Pa., or East Liverpool, Ohio.

On the flip side, however, is the local structure, but that too can lend support to the claim. Last year, the Conservatives achieved a near-monopoly on the county council, reducing Labour to just two of Kent's 84 council seats and leaving the main opposition party with seven. And The Times' rather generous predictions (by way of betting firm Ladbrokes) has all of Kent turning bluer than Papa Smurf next month. This while American bellwethers tend to have an even mix of Republicans and Democrats in Congressional representation.

Kent has historically been a stronghold for the Conservatives, with Labour holding pockets of support in port towns and villages adjacent to former collieries and Lib Dems collecting support in other pockets. Likewise in the 19th century, Missouri was a reliable Democrat stronghold. Willard Duncan Vandiver, the congressman famous for implying Missouri as the Show-Me State, said in that same quote that Missouri was a state that raised Democrats along with corn, cotton and cockleburs. And in the 1860 election (where Missouri was the only state that gave all its electors to Stephen A. Douglas) several counties recorded no votes for eventual winner Abraham Lincoln. But that didn't stop Missouri from gaining bellwether status and wearing it as a badge of honor.

Throughout the 20th century, the Show-Me State became more cosmopolitan, with expanding suburbs around Kansas City and St. Louis, the development of vibrant college cities in Columbia and Fulton. A solid religious conservative base gained footing in Springfield and the Ozarks, and a storied mining presence, fused with a heritage of French Catholicism, continued in the Lead Belt of St. François and Madison counties. And in the Northern Plans, several communities, many of them depleted of populations following the consolidation of farming operations and the shuttering of their only blue-collar employer, still shudder at the thought of electing a Republican to local office, despite showing the same right-wing religious fervency as the Ozarks. And Kent is among the places where similar change is occurring.

A continued mix of pan-European commerce, London suburbanites and hyper-commuters, union legacies from centuries of operating ports, collieries, and shipyards, all wedged inbetween historic farmlands and estates, and infused with a multitude of ethnicities, give Kent the character that could generate Britain's very own bellwether. And come 6 May, BBC's legendary swingometer may very well sway with plenty of Kentish weight on the arrow.

Avian foot-in-mouth disease outbreak in Scotland wipes out Labour candidate

The Prime Minister had to deviate from his prepared campaign speech Friday to issue a condemnation of the actions of his own party's candidate.

The Scottish Labour Party has yanked Stuart MacLennan from the ballot in Moray, located along its namesake firth in northern Scotland. MacLennan was found to have made various derogatory comments on his Twitter account, calling Speaker John Bercow and opposition party leaders David Cameron and Nick Clegg various names, referring to elderly voters as "coffin dodgers", and bragging about his alcohol consumption while insulting the whisky distilleries in his own constituency. This dismissal only serves to help the current MP for Moray: Angus Robertson, leader of the Scottish National Party's Westminster Delegation.

Gee, it's not a good idea to post crap like that on Twitter when Sky News is following your every word (well, was before your account was deleted!)

How would this Web site gauge our Congressional Districts?

A third resource worth perusing during this month of campaigning is a Web site pointing out flaws in the first-past-the-post system that the UK has used to elect members to Parliament for years (and what several other nations have been using as well). Vote Power has calculated how much weight one person's vote has by constituency.

The more volatile a seat is (how often the seat changes hands, margin of victory, population of the district, etc.), the more weight a vote has. On the extremes, Vote Power has determined that the reformed constituency of Arfon in North West Wales has the most sway on the overall vote result, with just over the equivalent of 1.3 times a single vote. The worst constituency is also a new district, Merseyside's Knowsley, where it would take 50,000 voters to make up the moving power of one voter. That's because according to the figures Vote Power has shown, about 70 percent of residents in are believed to have voted for the Labour candidates in 2005.

In terms of constituencies that existed in 2005, the western Wales county constituency of Ceredigion has the most might with 1.220 (4.83 times the national average of 0.253), while Easington in County Durham ranks the lowest, also at 0.002.

While marginal seats are noted for having the most powerful votes in determining the election (it's suggested that despite the anger at Parliament, at least 60 percent of seats will return candidates from the same party), they also wind up having the most "wasted votes". That is, votes not counting toward the winning candidate. In the Labour-strongholds of Easington and Knowsley, only 29 percent of votes are expected to be cast for someone other than Labour's candidates, while in Ceredigion and Arfon, as many as two out of three votes will be cast for someone other than the winning candidate.

This is quite the presentation into the ills of first-past-the-post, both for stable and bellwether seats. A similar presentation could be (and perhaps should be) made later this fall with regards to control of Congress and the Electoral College. It would be interesting to know whether someone moving to Jackson County should settle in Lee's Summit (covered by the reliably Democratic 5th District), shuffle east to Blue Springs (which is the tailbone of an increasingly reliable Republican 6th District), or make the commute from Odessa in neighbouring Lafayette County (where, despite the long tenure of Ike Skelton, the 4th District just might swing to the GOP this fall.)

Online resources worth perusing

In addition to the BBC's continuous feed of election updates, every major UK media outlet are providing critical resources for their readers/viewers. I'll be highlighting two in particular.

The first is Sky News' constituency guide. Although that link leads to their generic election map, clicking on a constituency's news page leads you to an RSS-fed page for that constituency, featuring the Tweets of Parliamentary candidates and active followers, as well as recent news from reliable local news sources. For example, the page for Folkestone and Hythe features the Twitter feeds of Damian Collins from the Conservatives and Lynne Beaumont from the Liberal Democrats, as well as headlines from the online-based Hawkinge Gazette.

The second is everyone's favourite party platform matchmaker, this one provided by the Daily Telegraph. A voter answers 30 questions about 12 subjects to determine which parties' manifestos are the best fit for them. Although this is standard in every election that's been run in the online age, the Telegraph's engine allows the voter to de-select parties he/she would never consider voting for, or are not running candidates in his/her constituency. And, with separate engines for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, you can see how your political persuasions would fit in different parts of the UK.

Chickens happy to put Colonel Sanders in 10 Downing

For anyone that trust what the Daily Mail publishes with more than a grain of salt, this item is quite interesting:

Members of the Unite workers union, which includes many British Airways flight crews that went on strike over the last month, have indicated in a poll that they would prefer to see Conservative leader David Cameron become Prime Minister. The poll, which the Daily Mail says was commissioned by the Conservatives but administered independently, finds that 34 percent of the 500+ Unite members surveyed want Cameron as prime minister, five percent more than Gordon Brown. (Only 14 percent favoured Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg.)

Of course, in Daily Mail fashion, that statistic is buried deep in the story. Instead, they trump up the figure where 81 percent say it's "time for a change", implying that an overwhelming majority of this "far-left" union support the centre-right Tories. However, the remaining figures do not fare well for Labour, as three out of four Unite members would prefer that the union not spend their dues on supporting political candidates but instead themselves, and three out of five are dissatisfied with Brown's performance.

Labour and the major workers unions have strayed apart following the largely unsuccessful and violent miners strike of 1984. Arthur Scargill, who led the National Union of Mineworkers during the strike, broke from the Labour Party in 1996 when Tony Blair effectively renounced socialism in Labour's campaign manifestos. The largest union in the UK, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, spearheaded a separate electoral alliance of socialist and union-oriented parties in 2009 to contest races for the European Parliament. No2EU, Yes to Democracy, now the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition, expresses a more left-oriented brand of Euroscepticism, counter to the pro-business platform of UKIP.

Of course, as this was a poll commissioned by the Conservatives, there probably was no mention of the TUSC in the survey, or the results would have probably gone against their favour. But for the time being, this is another jab at the Labour establishment, painting them as starkly similar to a dystopian Animal Farm, and providing relevance to the ironic statement "Chickens for Colonel Sanders".

And of course, this report (which I've not found published in any other UK paper yet) comes from the same paper which (by way of a different editorial staff, obviously) endorsed Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists in the 1935 election.

IT'S ON!!

Begin enduring four weeks of campaign slogans, nationalist parties with no chance for even the guest room at 10 Downing clamouring for publicity, and yours truly finding ways to compare Gordon Brown to Harry Truman even though he's been critical of this post-Blair government. The 2010 general election campaign in the UK is underway.

The BBC has a wonderful summary page that provides live updates and, if you are in the UK (or can convince the Beeb that your IP is in the UK), live video of various campaign events.

Already most media are talking about the prospect of a hung parliament, a rather derisive way of saying minority or coalition government, which is more prevalent in other Westminster-style legislatures like Canada (such as the current minority government of Stephen Harper) and Israel (which consistently generates coalition governments). A snap poll conducted on Facebook today by Channel 4 News, as a show of the significance social media networking sites will have on this election, also indicates the prospect of a hung parliament.

Should a hung parliament come about, it would essentially be a victory in the eye (er, eyes) of the Prime Minister. Even if the Conservatives are able to gain the most votes and seats, Brown as the current occupant would be able to stick around until a clear majority came about to defeat his government. From this position he could also establish a stable governing coalition or cadre of small parties (namely Plaid Cymru & SNP, partially ironic considering both are Labour's strongest challengers in Wales & Scotland!) willing to back him on confidence issues. And if the Conservatives, as polls now suggest, have fallen into hung parliament territory following their commanding lead throughout most of 2009's surveys, it will represent a collapse comparable to that of (bottoms up for anyone crazy enough to start a drinking game around this) Dewey in '48 and about half the elections in Canada the past decade.

Only twice since the watershed election of 1945 has Britain had a minority government, both during the 1970s. The first was formed in February 1974 by Labour's Harold Wilson when they claimed a four-seat advantage over the Tories; however, Wilson was unable to gain the support of enough parties to form a coalition (the third-place Liberals only had 18 seats) and had to call another election in October. While Labour won an outright majority in that election, enough by-election defeats and Wilson's sudden decision in 1976 to retire as Prime Minister & return to the backbenches resulted in another minority government led by Harold Macmillan. That minority government was toppled by Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives in 1979.

Should a hung parliament come about, expect any or all of the following:

1. Sterling's value at $1.30 by the Fourth of July, USD if the almighty quid's lucky.
2. A new election right after Christmas (when John Denver takes the Christmas #1!)
3. George Osborne or Alistair Darling getting the boot to make room for Vince Cable as Chancellor of the Exchequer, as part of a deal to gain the Liberal Democrats' participation in a coalition government.
4. Nationalist parties to play a role in a coalition. For Labour, they'll try and garner the support of Plaid Cymru and the SNP, on top of their ties with the SDLP of Northern Ireland, and possibly a Green or two that could get elected from Brighton. The Conservatives, which have next-to-no influence in Scotland but a growing base in Wales, will seek the support of both Unionist parties in the Ulster counties.
5. Even more pages from the Obama playbook (and maybe even Sarah Palin's) making their way across the pond. Again, this is the first election since the advent of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and all sorts of other social networking pages, on top of mobile phones & devices that can allow people to watch campaign speeches from the comfort of a National Express bus stuck in traffic on the M25. Also, it's the first election since Tony Blair left office with military operations in Iraq still ongoing, MPs were building duck moats and teenage lover's coffee houses with taxpayer funds, resentment among voters will be high.
   
   A hung parliament will resolve few if any of these issues, leading to possibly more resentment and demonstrations, along with all parties using these media to keep getting their various message across.

Of course, we have four weeks to see this play out. All aboard!

Whistle Stop Train leaves St. Pancras at 0900

British media across the spectrum are reporting that Prime Minister Gordon Brown, following a Cabinet meeting and regrouping from the Easter holiday, will head to Buckingham Palace and formally request that Her Majesty (finally) dissolve this current term of Parliament.

Provided he doesn't hiccup and wait for another month, the frustration of British voters accumulating over the past five years—the economy, Iraq and Afghanistan, MPs expenses, government spending in general, the Lisbon Treaty, immigration, devolution—will finally clash in what is the most anticipated election since the polls of October 1992. And with the most MPs standing aside since the war-delayed election of 1945 (where a big-tent Labour majority upended Churchill's postwar ambitions), the stakes couldn't be higher, and the outcome too close to call.

Over the course of the next month we will see all this play out, full-blown as opposed to just in news bits. Complete with duck moats, non-doms, kingmakers, baby bumps, bigots in denial, and the first televised debates between the men who could be Prime Minister.

Game on, Britannia.

Oh, and everyone in Missouri: several municipalities and school districts have candidates and ballot issues for your perusal tomorrow. Please don't be part of the 80% who don't bother to go to the polls tomorrow.