Clustershag in the Parliament

I've been following the results of the recent election in the U.K. with some interest, not just curious because I know some people who live there, but because like the Canadian kerfuffle about a year-and-a-half ago, it's just interesting to compare and contrast it with American politics.

As with Canada, the major difference in comparison to the U.S. is the presence of more than two political parties with a measurable amount of clout. But even though there are three parties in play in the U.K., it seems to me from what I have read that none of them embrace positions as "far from center" as the two American parties. The Conservatives who have just taken the majority (but not an absolute one) seem not to be as far right as American Republicans, nor do the Labour Party or Liberal Democrats seem to be as far left as the American Democrats. (Indeed, both of the latter seem to be widely characterized as "center-left" in everything I've read. Or rather, "centre-left," in the Queen's English.) I marvel at (and am possibly a bit jealous of) a political system in which not only are there more than two viable choices, but they're all congregating within an area less polarized than the extremes of the politics I'm exposed to daily.

Where it gets weirder to me is this new "coalition government" that's coming as a result of the election. Because the winning party didn't attain a majority all on its own, they're having to play nice with the third place party to get that majority. As near as I try to imagine this, there's no analog for this in recent American politics. Not since the days soon after we became a nation has there been a concept of "first place becomes president; second place becomes vice-president -- even if they're of opposing parties." But that's what we have here... a step removed even, since the new Deputy Prime Minister's party actually placed third. Imagine if, after winning election in 1992, Bill Clinton was forced to take on Ross Perot as his Vice President to form a workable government. Odd, to say the least.

From what I gather, the Liberal Democrats are the more centrist of the two left-leaning parties in the U.K. (though I'd be happy for someone who knows more than I to clarify), so perhaps it's not too odd for them to try and seek common ground with Conservatives. Still, you have a party that's fundamentally "right" having to work together with a party that's fundamentally "left" to govern. Cooperation is forced here. Another notion that (I think in this case for worse) is lacking in U.S. politics.

But when I read about the positions of these two U.K. parties in general, and of the two party leaders in particular -- David Cameron and Nick Clegg -- it doesn't honestly seem like they have that much to find common ground about other than the shared desire to step into power and stick it to the Labour Party. "As long as it's not Gordon Brown running things," seems to be the subtextual tone of this whole thing. "I can get along with this guy, or else risk being voted right back out of whatever power I have in a few month's time."

Perhaps there's some ignorance on my part leading me to this conclusion. Perhaps I'm working too hard to project my American political sensibilities onto the whole thing. But like I said, I find it interesting to watch.