Meanwhile, contemplating the possibility of not actually winning the election, Conservative leader David Cameron has indicated he might defy the convention that the prime minister (that is, still, Grdon Brown) is allowed first stab at forming a government (2).
This from the man who claims that a possible Lib-Lab coalition would be be economically dangerous, as the markets would not look kindly on uncertainty. Yet now he contemplates adding to that uncertainty by ignoring the rules and trying to muscle in on the coalition process.
So we've got a whiny Tory brat who - if he can't win under the current rules - will try to ignore then or re-write them on the fly. If, in other words, the voting system that Cameron says is the best because it allows the electorate to decisively kick governments out, fails to decisively kick the government out, he'll ignore that, and conveniently forget how he thought it was the best system and then not change the system if he manages to weasel his way into a position where he could do something about it?
If this is how he responds to an electoral setback, how on Earth will he react to a genuine crisis? Brown, for all his grumpiness, mealy mouthed Scottish hypocrisy, arrogance and total lack of charisma, seems to rise to the occasion when ever something other than his own political well being is at stake. Cameron, it seems, is the opposite, and his own political survival is his prime concern.
And some people want this prick to be prime minister? How odd.
1 - "Battered Gordon Brown finds his voice," by patrick Wintour. Published in the Guardian, 4th of May, 2010. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/03/gordon-brown-plea-progressive-voters)
2 - "Conservative anger at rules that may let Labour cling to power after election," by Nicholas Watt. Published in the Guardian, 4th of May, 2010. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/03/conservative-anger-rules-labour-cling-power)