I feel a bit strange, since most of my readers are Americans, (thanks, Jimmi and other relatives)  to devote so many blogs to the UK elections, fearing lack of background information will leave them unintelligible. But Jon Stewart gave segments to the UK elections last week; who am I not to follow the example of the Sainted One? If you foolishly don't watch Jon Stewart or read one of the Better Papers, here's the brief summary: the UK had an election; the results gave no party an overall majority; led to a 'hung Parliament'; the Liberal Democratic Party ("LibDems") gave their support to the Conservative Party, thus giving the Conservatives enough votes in the House of Commons to win any vote.

The LibDems are slightly left of Blair's New Labour. The Conservatives are more than slightly to the right of New Labour. In terms of the election manifestos, Labour had more in common with the Conservatives than the LibDems have. So it's going to be a difficult alliance.

When you have an election, sometimes the party you dislike doesn't win. I've pointed that out before. As long as the election isn't stolen (you know who I mean Mr. Bush) you shrug, decide some section of the electorate are fools and get on with it. The Tories didn't commit voter fraud. No electronic voting devices with perverted code. No police cruisers to intimidate voters. There was enough disingenuousness to leave me feeling more than a little disgruntled.

Major case in point: one of the LibDems' prime appeals to the electorate in swing constituencies is to Labour voters: vote LibDem and keep the Tories out. Some of the LibDem's seats are due to Labour voting tactically. I have friends in Manchester and a couple of other places that voted LibDem for that reason. I didn't - the Tory is not beatable in Canterbury. But I have in the past, hoping to get rid of our MP. I didn't in this election. (Another friend, taking advantage of the True Blue colour of Canterbury, simply votes for the party she like best: Green. There is a kind of giddy freedom in knowing your vote doesn't count for shit.)

I expected the LibDems to come to an arrangement with the Tories when the results of the vote were announced. Doing a deal with Labour, to support them in staying in power, wouldn't have worked. Labour plus LibDem MPs did not have a majority of votes in the House of Commons; they would have been required to put together a majority with other, smaller parties and the majority wouldn't have been workable. But I didn't expect the LibDems to combine so closely with the Conservatives: a commitment to support the Tories for a full five year Parliament, agreement to begin cuts in spending immediately, adoption of the Tory immigration policy, silence on Europe and the EU. In exchange, they got fairy gold.

The LibDem Holy Grail is proportional representation, a system of voting in which the House of Commons reflects the percentage of votes cast for each political party. The LibDems routinely get about 23% of the votes cast but do not get a quarter of seats in the House.   In exchange for support, Cameron has offered Clegg a variant on the first past the post system, which we (and the US and Canada and some other countries) use: take more votes in your district than any one else, and you win. The Tories have offered the LibDems a referendum in which voters can choose between the current system and a second preference system - the supplementary vote. Voters select their first choice with a "1" rather than an "x" on the ballot. The voter than puts a "2" next to another candidate - his/her second choice. If a candidate does not obtain 50+% of the vote, the top two candidates are retained and the second choices of voters for other candidates is added to their count. (The Mayor of London is elected using SV. It's very similar to primaries in some places in the US. If no candidate takes over 50% of the vote, a run-off election is held, with only the top two candidates on the ballot. SV is better, I think. It's cheaper: no need to hold a second election and candidates need less money to win.)

This isn't going to help the LibDems get many more seats. It still will not reflect LibDem percentage of the vote. It has some advantages - tactical voting isn't necessary. But even this is not really on offer. The Tories have promised a referendum. They, and a number of Labour politicians, will campaign against it. It may or may not pass. (I doubt Cameron can actually deliver his promised referendum: too many Tory and Labour MP's will vote against it.)

If the LibDems are going to give up a considerable number of their manifesto promises, they at least ought to get a referendum on full PR. Cameron could never have sold full PR to his party. He's having difficulty getting them to accept SV. I suppose, on this issue, Clegg got the best deal on offer.

A friend who voted LibDem tactically, to keep the Tories out, says bitterly she knows what the Liberal Democrats got: seats on the cabinet and the salaries, cars and drivers that go with them. This seems a bit harsh. Clegg is to the right of most of his party, Cameron to the left of most Tories. Perhaps, to the pair of them, the policy changes are not too important. I doubt that's true of Vince Cable or Menzies Campbell. Cable has taken a ministerial post and looks grim. Campbell hasn't been heard from.

Draconian cuts are expected to public services. Tories are reported to be chortling: the cuts can be blamed on the LibDems; if the economy crashes further, that, too, can be blamed on the Liberal Democrats. The LibDems have agreed to support the Tories for a five year term in office. Clegg is gambling on the economy improving considerably by the time the next election rolls round.

Will it last the five years? A bill to require a 55% vote in the House of Commons before a government can be dissolved and new elections called has been proposed. It hasn't passed yet, and may not. Even if Cameron can get the bill through Parliament, the House of Lords, I think, will refuse to pass it. It changes the structure of the British parliamentary system. It was not part of the party manifesto and has not been the subject of a referendum. I don't believe the Lords will support it.

So how long before another election? I'm betting eighteen months. And I’m also betting it will be a cold day in Hell before a Labour supporter votes tactically. In the coming election, when it comes, a loss of fifteen LibDem seats?