The first time since February 1974

I watched until I had to go to bed, and it wasn't looking good for the Lib Dems, nor especially for Labour. When I woke up, I found, as everyone did, just what we all thought was going to happen: a hung House of Commons. Vote and seat totals are as follows:

Conservatives, 36.1% with 306 seats for a swing of +97.
Labour, 29% with 258 seats for a swing of -91.
Liberal Democrats, 23% with 57 seats for a swing of -5.
Others parties, 11.9% with 28 seats.

I'm not surprised with the results of the Tories, who had been projected all along to be the biggest party, nor with Labour, whose vote and seat numbers I called with quite close accuracy. But the Liberal Democrats had the biggest disappointment of the night, for a win of only one percent over the last election in 2005 and a net loss of five seats, despite pre-election polls giving them no less than 25%, and in some, above Labour, at 29%. It turns out that, as Nick Clegg said, in the voting booth, people decided to go with "what they know" in times of financial crises. The polling was just dead wrong, with some, myself included, under the impression that they were on their way to a major breakthrough and adding at least 18 seats, with wild aspirations of swinging up to 38 seats from the other two parties.

But as of now, no party has a majority. This means Gordon Brown squats inside Number 10 Downing Street, hoping for his chance, while the Tories and Lib Dems mash out some kind of compromise with one another in return for stable government for the next eighteen or so odd months. Will it work? That's the big question right now.

Nick Clegg stated from the near beginning his intention of approaching the party with the largest mandate in popular vote should they require help in forming a majority. He's playing his cards right so far by going to Tories first. Should the compromise prove successful in the end, he will have behind him, nominally, 59.1% of the voting population. This would theoretically allow for the most stable match-up scenario, as any stray thoughts of a Con-Lab compromise/coalition are pipe dreams due to over one hundred years of anathema between the two parties.

The problem everyone sees here is that the policy that the Lib Dems want the most, that of electoral reform toward proportional representation, will almost certainly not be offered by a Conservative government, the party which prides itself on a history of strong mandates made stronger under a voting system which serves to marginalize every voter who does not vote for the ultimate winner in Westminster. Instead, Cameron is offering a tri-partisan commission on evaluating the pros and cons of such a voting system. This is lip service at best.

A Con-Lib Dem compromise would, however, be much stronger with more longevity than the primary alternative--that of a Lab-Lib Dem compromise/coalition. Together, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats account for a majority of the electorate at 52%, and they would have together nine more seats than the Tories, though they would still be eleven seats short of a majority. Looking to the smaller parties, the Social Democratic and Labour Party of Northern Ireland seems a natural Labour ally, though three more seats only brings a tripartite coalition/compromise to 318 seats, still eight short. Along down the line, even if they could convince the lone Green MP or the solitary Alliance MP into coalition, this scenario still has them six short. This government probably couldn't even get a referendum passed through the Commons due to opposition from the Conservatives and regional parties like the Unionists from Northern Ireland, the Scottish Nationals, and Plaid Cymru in Wales.

A Labour/Liberal Democrat alliance does, although, make more logical sense than does one between the Tories and Liberals. Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats are left-of-center parties who have similar policies concerning the economic situation. Most commentators see them as more natural allies as far as policy goes. And as far as the Lib Dems' biggest aspiration, that of electoral reform, the Labour Party is tantalizing them with a much-publicized plan to put to the people a referendum on the voting system in Britain. Is this an offer the Lib Dems can refuse?

In a word, yes. The Lib Dems are only a third party, but they've stuck around since 1945 in various incarnations (as the Liberal Party, and later, the Social Democratic Party) due to a keen sense of strategy and pragmatism. These people are not stupid, nor are they blinded by ideology. The Lib Dems will end up choosing the path that makes the most sense for their continued existence, and, as this election has proven, there is a strong alternative with the power to change the direction of the UK only six percent behind Labour. Both the Conservatives and Labour NEED them. For the first time since 1978's Labour minority they're in a position of real power and hold the key to real change in British government.

So, what the hell are they going to do? I can only guess. I think, in the next few days, it will become clear that they are willing to do business, for the time being, with Mr. Cameron and his Conservatives. This is both the popular and pragmatic choice. They will be seen to support the "winning" Tories as opposed to the "losing" Labour Party, which will help as far as popular support goes, and will position them well for the next general election which I predict will come about no later than November 10, 2011. In this new election, the Lib Dems could then tout the fact that they were an integral stabilizing factor in government for months and months and had done so for the good of the British people despite not having their dearest policy, that of electoral reform see the true light of day. A center-left party could work successfully with a center-right party in Great Britain for the first time in 65 or more years.

They would be in a damned good position indeed.

Let's wait til Sunday or Monday to see what eventually pans out. Keep your fingers crossed, please.