It was hardly the first time a Coalition had been formed to implement an austerity agenda. The National Government of the Depression years is one exemplar.

Labour sits on the sidelines, with some doubt that its party processes will enable a left alternative to be considered in its leadership election, and its ability to present a viable opposition somewhat diminished by the wholesale adoption of New Labour themes by Cameron’s Red Tory-ism, to the degree that communitarian project has any substance.

In Australia, too, we have the spectre of public disillusion with the two major parties, but an electoral system which will minimise any expression of a desire for a third alternative, with The Greens effectively relegated to Upper House redoubts.

One of the most interesting reflections on the state of Labour in the UK, in the light of the 2010 poll, is from Jeremy Gilbert, writing in Open Democracy.

Gilbert argues that Labour avoided a wipe out because it showed surprising resilience in constituencies where an activist campaigning base persisted, and in regions where local or regional governments had been able to demonstrate the meaningfulness of social democratic initiatives to everyday lives.

In politics, Gilbert argues, content follows form:

Probably the best term ever coined to describe that strategy was Anthony Barnett’s phrase ‘corporate populism’. New Labour was based on the idea that a new kind of popular politics had to imitate the organisational and communications techniques of corporations, while pursuing a political programme which tried to align the interests of voters with those of actual corporations. When reflecting on this history, it’s striking to consider that New Labour’s full embrace of market liberalism came some time after its adoption of this approach as its own basic organisational mode.

Long before it became clear that New Labour wouldn’t break in any serious way with Thatcherite economics, while Blair still tantalised his supporters with references to Christian Socialism, ethical communitarianism, and the ‘stakeholder society’, the organisational form of New Labour prefigured the models and the value that it would later try to impose on the state, the public sector, and the country at large.

The basic organisational idea of New Labour was that the party membership were the problem and not the solution.

He further argues that the modern culture of expert messaging, organisational centralisation and Spin is broken.

New Labour only ever understood one part of the story about the decline of old political forms. While they may have been right that the 19th / 20th century model of mass political campaigning was reaching its end, they failed to notice the extent to which the coming era would present new opportunities for community-building and for democratic action, and new problems for any attempt to stifle democracy and debate. The success and growing political importance of the blogosphere and of sites like this one is just one sign of this!

A “command-and-control communications strategy” should not drive out political energies, Gilbert contends:

a complete overhaul and reinvention of the Labour Party for the 21st century is the only thing that could achieve this end. In the era of ‘we-think’ and network culture, the collective intelligence of the membership – including the 12,000 who have rushed to join now that the age of New Labour looks likely to have ended – is the greatest possible resource that the otherwise-impoverished party has at its disposal.

In our part of the world, we’ve seen the nexus between the Labor party’s aging and diminished membership and its commanding heights much fractured over recent decades. The Greens, by contrast, have demonstrated what’s possible with an activist and democratised base. But there are limits to the possible success of The Greens, under our antiquated electoral and party systems, and I think every progressive should welcome a democratisation of Australian Labor. It may not occur until the party goes back into opposition, which I hope is a long way away. But it’s a vital precondition for a revival of responsiveness and hope in our democracy, and not just for those on the left.

In the age of Facebook and Twitter, which enable millions of citizens to share ideas, to build campaigns and to communicate across great distances, the idea that a handful of professional politicians touring the TV studios of central London can be an adequate substitute for democratic politics looks clunky and forlorn.

NB: Previous LP British election coverage here.

Update: Interesting piece from Seumas Milne.

The full shape of the possible deal with Labour and other parties is revealed in The Guardian‘s article.

It’s significant that while many hours have been consumed by negotiations with the Tories, Clegg and Brown met for only one hour. It’s significant for two reasons: first, it indicates that the Conservatives’ garnering of the greatest number of seats and votes is a powerful argument for them to form a government, and secondly, that the difference between the Conservatives’ position and the Lib Dem’s on not just electoral reform but also a large range of policy areas is much greater than with Labour.

In one sense, either outcome is a win for Labour. But going into opposition might actually be the better medium term result for the governing party. The scope of the task any government will face in restoring public finances will most likely ensure wide unpopularity, particularly if spending cuts are driven through by David Cameron. There’s also the real risk of a double dip recession, with growth almost at a standstill in the last two quarters, and the uncertainty in the Eurozone in the wake of the Greek crisis. Labour might be better off having the chance to elect a new leader through its electoral college processes, rather than the Cabinet anointing David Miliband or another Minister to replace Brown.

On the other hand, while Labour probably has a better chance of overcoming internal opposition to electoral reform than the Tories, a government lacking legitimacy would face hurdles in gaining popular support at a referendum. But the Tories will likely campaign against any referendum whether in or out of government. So the chances of securing the Lib Dems’ holy grail are uncertain in either scenario.

It’s both a diabolical choice and a defining moment for Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems: and for British politics.

NB: Previous LP coverage and discussion of the British election can be found here.

Elsewhere: Jonathan Freedland on Gordon Brown.

Update: Election facts and figures.

Update: Gordon Brown has announced that he will step down.

What’s clear too, though, is that the verdict of the electorate is one born of mistrust of all the alternatives on offer, and the message sent is that the electoral and political systems are deeply fractured, if not broken.

It’s also clear that distaste for a long term and largely discredited Labour government hasn’t resulted in a regular swing of the partisan pendulum.

It seems to me that, in the immediate future, two options are possible:

(a) A minority Conservative government which would find great difficulty in pushing through austerity measures, and whose legislative agenda would be captive not just to other parties, but also its own backbench, or;

(b) A Lab/Lib deal or Coalition which would promise stable government for a year or two, premised on electoral reform.

In either case, a new election is likely in fairly short order, as Labour and the Lib Dems would also not command a Commons majority.

The Lib Dems face something of an invidious choice – guaranteeing supply for a Conservative regime which would probably treat them with contempt (just as the Labour minority government treated its Liberal supporters in the 1924 and 1929 parliaments) or an alliance with a party which has certainly worn out its electoral welcome, despite showing more resilience in terms of seats than many had anticipated.

The Lib Dems’ internal processes do not allow their Leader to determine which party to support without quite a complex process of consultation, which will slow things down (probably a good thing), but conversely; the pressure from the Conservatives and the media will be intense.

My suspicion is that the Labour Party will retain Gordon Brown in the short term, in part because his incumbency as PM is key to the constitutional puzzle, and also to keep their options open for the timing of a shift to a new Leader. It’s not at all clear that David Miliband, seen as a Blairite, is the best or only candidate, and the Blair/Mandelson regime left the party with quite a complex procedure for electing a Leader.

It’s all very interesting indeed, and whatever happens, it’s certain that the fabric of British politics has been rent asunder.

Update: The BBC is reporting that Nick Clegg has announced that he still believes the party with the most votes and seats should have the first chance to form the government. He may feel boxed in both by his (probably unwise) previous pronouncements, and by the fact that his party’s status quo result gives them less legitimacy. It’s also easier to represent the result as a repudiation of Labour than as an anti-Tory progressive majority, given that Labour and the Lib Dems together don’t constitute a majority.

So my scenario (a) is looking more likely. But the caveats are that the Conservatives are likely not to make much of an offer to the Lib Dems, if they offer anything at all, and that the decision is not solely Clegg’s to take. The Lib Dems’ backbench is generally to the left of its leadership, as are their grassroots activists, and the fact that this may be the party’s best shot at electoral reform may also concentrate minds.

Clegg will face some difficulty holding his own party together, whichever option is taken.

NB: Previous LP discussion of the UK election can be found here.

Update: BBC Links post to commentary on various options for cross-party pacts or Coalitions, or a minority government.

Update: Cameron has offered Clegg a Coalition, including Cabinet seats, but with a position on electoral reform described as “measly”, and an attempt to rope the Lib Dems into the Conservatives’ economic agenda. Negotiations continue, and there will be meetings of the Lib Dem parliamentary party and federal executive. Some skepticism has been expressed over whether Clegg’s party could be brought round to supporting a Tory government. There’s just a possibility that a Lab-Lib government could scrape together a majority on votes of confidence if all small parties including the DUP could be brought into the tent.

Update: The hashtag #dontdoitnick is trending on Twitter, and the outlines of an alternative to a Tory-Lib Dem pact are becoming clearer with SNP leader and Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond outlining a “progressive coalition” to introduce PR which would have a Commons majority of one seat.

Meanwhile, Nick Clegg has addressed a rally in support of electoral reform outside Parliament while Lib Dem MPs ponder Cameron’s offer inside.

Update: Andrew Rawnsley on the dilemma the Lib Dems face; one he characterises as a “nightmare”.

Update: New post here. Comments can be directed there.

NB: Previous LP discussion of the UK election here.

As obituaries for the 13 year reign of New Labour are already being written (and they’re not all entirely gloomy), Gordon Brown’s task is to rally the Labour faithful, and to sharpen the contrast with the Tories in 100 or so Tory-Labour marginals where the current electoral system would facilitate tactical voting by Liberal Democrat supporters. Brown’s mind might also be concentrated by the rumours that Peter Mandelson is orchestrating his replacement post haste after Thursday’s election. But it’s surely interesting that he articulates a good reason to vote Labour at the end of an era.

NB: Previous LP discussion of the UK election here.

Elsewhere: Jonathan Freedland.

But the third party’s surge has thrown the Labour and Tory camps, particularly the latter, into confusion, forced to turn their guns on the Lib Dems, rather than taking potshots at each other.

The Lib Dems have been channelling voter rage over bank bailouts and the political expenses scandal, and to their credit, are the only one of the three parties the premise of whose campaign isn’t based on lies about the fiscal challenges ahead in the post-GFC UK.

Britain’s election system delivered the Lib Dems 9.6% of parliamentary seats for their 22% of the vote in 2005. If the Lib Dems come first or second this time around, they’re likely to end up with somewhere around 100 seats, and Labour could be the largest party in the House of Commons despite coming third. In these circumstances, a shift to a fairer voting system would be irresistible, and the Tories, who’ve been sticking doggedly to first past the post, could find themselves staring down the barrel of a future where they would be most unlikely to ever form a majority administration again. It’s also becoming more likely that the next British Prime Minister will be Labour (although it may not be Gordon Brown), despite all the doom and gloom predictions of the last couple of years.

NB: Previous LP discussion of the British general election here.

Elsewhere: Guardian coverage of the election here.

Update: Interesting piece on the view of the Lib Dem surge from the Labour and Tory camps.

Update: New post.

I think what we’re seeing now, with Tony Abbott, is that fig leaf being discarded.

We’re back to old fashioned paternalism – faith, country, and trust in your betters. And in the economic sphere, Abbott, who knows nothing much of economics, is happy for the state to sit down and carve up the pie in consultation with his preferred interest groups. All this is really classic National Party stuff.

What’s perhaps astonishing on the surface, at least, is how little we’re hearing from the so-called libertarians and classical liberals about Abbott’s lack of faith in the market. Could it be that they’re mostly more interested in anti-Labor partisanship than their own ostensible creed?

Right wing commentators couldn’t have been quicker out of the starting blocks to proclaim “America is still a Centre Right nation”. In fact they were at it before the votes were counted – Bill Bennett’s lugubrations on CNN is one example folks here might have seen in watching the election coverage. The memes abound. McCain still got 46%! Obama’s win wasn’t big enough!

Such exciteable commentary doesn’t stop to consider, of course, that in a two party system, without the presence of a strong third party challenger, landslides aren’t that common. Ronald Reagan in 1980 received 50.1% of the popular vote, in an election which everyone agrees ushered in an “Era”. Barack Obama did somewhat better than that. And John McCain still pulled in a significant number of independent voters – it’s not too difficult to imagine how wrong the claims that a more conservative candidate would have run better are. Let’s not forget that McCain continually sounded the note that he was someone who often differed from his own party.

Let’s make a couple of quick points here. Most of this speculation – and the accompanying predictions that Obama may be a steady as she goes moderate – is just that. It’s basically worthless, except for what it reveals about the politics of those doing the predicting. We don’t know exactly how Obama will govern. We do know that he’s stated that big challenges will require bold measures. And we do know that an agenda of de facto universal healthcare, economic revival and redressing the plight of middle and working class voters is what he won on. That’s surprisingly radical in the American context. And this election saw a lot of the anti-government rhetoric Reagan ran into town with finally kicked to the curb.

Secondly, let’s consider the fact that the “liberal” scare didn’t work (and the sorts of voters who were ready to believe Obama to be a “socialist” were always going to be in the GOP tent):

Perhaps the most revealing post-election data on that question came from within the defeated McCain campaign. In an interview with Roger Simon of Politico, the Republican candidate’s speechwriter and friend, Mark Salter, disclosed that in the campaign’s own internal polling data, 60 percent of Americans regarded Obama as “liberal.” The campaign thought that would be enough to defeat him, which is why it hammered on the “left-wing” themes.

Baiting the liberals didn’t work this year. Disgusted with the Republican right, voters wanted something different and weren’t afraid to look leftward. That is what “realignment” means.

In the article at Salon from which that quote is drawn, Joe Conason looks at the demographic and political analyses of John Judis and Rey Teixeira. Possibly the best article I’ve seen so far on the shifts in voting patterns and what they entail is by Judis in The New Republic. It’s well worth a read.

If, however, Obama and the Democrats take the advice of official Washington and go slow–adopting incremental reforms, appeasing adversaries that have lost their clout–they could end up prolonging the downturn and discrediting themselves. What might have been a hard realignment could become not merely a soft realignment, but perhaps even an abortive one. That’s not the kind of change America needs–or wants.

The Canadian election is all over and the result is yet another minority government for the Conservatives. The turnout was low and it looks like Canadians went with the devil they knew given the current economic climate.

The Liberals failed to make a dent, the NDP improved but to no effect. As is usual the Greens failed to garner much support on a percentage basis let alone win a seat and Bloc Quebecois did it’s usual thing in winning the majority of seats in Quebec.

Yes the Conservatives increased their representation and would like to claim some kind of mandate but a minority is a minority no matter how you spin it, so, Canadians will probably be back here again in a couple of years with the Conservatives vainly looking for a majority, quite possibly with a new leader – there is no question there will be a new Liberal leader; the academic Stéphane Dion failed to impress.

I suppose the good news is that any potential excesses of Conservative rule will be tempered by a wall of notionally progressive voices in the opposition benches; working together seems to be the political meme de jour right now anyway.

By the way, I was really interested in these hypotheses mentioned at the Poll Bludger because the Canadian election was mentioned.

Hypothesis one, from Peter Brent at Mumble: “Canada’s one-term government going for re-election (after only 18 months), amidst world economic turmoil, should provide some clue as to how Rudd & co might fare at the next election.”

Hypothesis two, from Adam in Canberra at this place: “It’s curious that the financial crisis seems to be working in favour of the incumbents in NZ (on the basis of one Morgan poll) and (I think so far) Australia, but against the incumbents in the US and Canada. That would suggest that conservatives are being blamed, not incumbents.”

Based on this one result it looks like the economic climate may favour the status quo, as long as they are seen to be doing something, so as Peter Brent mentioned, maybe this does hold a clue to the future for the Rudd government; now that it’s finally found a media narrative to run with.