Putting aside domestic considerations, I'm not overly confident that a Cameron government would bring that much sanity to the table. His close friendship with the likes of Michael Gove MP (paid up Henry Jackson Society zealot) is hardly encouraging. Of course it's hard to pin down what a future Cameron government would actually look like as he seems to be avoiding actually articulating any policies, especially on Iraq.

Now, I know nothing about British politics except that Margaret Thatcher was a charming witch and that you should get out of Ireland, but how about the leadership change in Labour? Foreign policy-wise, Gordon Brown could hardly do much worse than Blair -- any chance he would be downright good?

And please leave your Tory sympathies at the door before answering. I'm rather fond of New Labour.

Sorry, that should be "Middle East foreign policy-wise". I know of no spectacular screwups towards the rest of the world, and he's seemed pretty good on EU and much else. Credit where credit is due.

If one thinks a Tory government would have been any less supportive of Bush, one should think again. The scummy UK electoral system makes sure you can't vote against Blair without putting Cameron in power. As for Brown, I've found noone really knows. A more traditional Labour brute, but one who has made sure to keep his differences with Blair over foreign policy within the party.

Agreed the Tories have shown no evidence they would improve on Blair's performance, foreign policy-wise. Mind you, they would have a strong incentive to identify and address earlier mistakes, contrary to Labour.

The scummy UK electoral system requires a truly massive swing to the Tories before they can take power. I rather suspect that the minute that looks likely Labour will discover the benefits of Proportional Representation. No matter how much the Lib-Dems hate Labour there is no way they would go into coalition with the Tories. Hence continued Labour rule for the foreseeable.

...the minute that looks likely Labour will discover the benefits of Proportional Representation.

Hehe, I hope you're right. Two-party systems are the spawn of the devil, it's no coincidence voter participation is so low in these. A Lib-Lab coalition would rule out Tory rule for a long time. Would also bring BNP some seats, which I frankly think would be healthy. Though they are pretty disgusting, it's never a good thing when votes are suppressed. France take note. Read some naughty things about Sweden too, their system has not been kind to either Sverigedemokraterne or Feministerne. Sweden's 4% bar is pretty high, and parties below that get very little help from the authorities, unlike those in parliament.

On UK, another issue is Scotland, which has put and kept Labour in power. If it secedes from UK, the Tories would have a firm grip on Westminster. But that's future music, still, I don't know what the timeline looks like on Scottish independence.

Idiotic idealism is the spawn of evil.

Good lord what sort of cretins are reading this?

Primo, a conservative government of course is not going to be some drooling namby pamby Left friendly vision of anti-Americanism, that is to be sure.

And the world is better for it.

One can expect, however, a Merkel like non-slavish approach to Mr Bush, contra the Poodle, which is an intelligent tack.

Secundo, multiparty systems merely express the collective idiocies of the electorate differently, and have gross disadvantages themselves. This idiotic grass-is-greener whinging on is mere wishful thinking dressed up in other closes (if only more parties my favourite policies....).

L-
What makes you think that a Brown government would be "drooling namby pamby Left friendly vision of anti-Americanism"?

The only reason Tories are critical of the Iraq war is, a) it's a disaster they didn't make, and b) they're the opposition. So they milk it for all it's worth, of course.

If L somehow believes Tories would have been more sensible on Iraq than the poodle, I can say the Danish right-wing government is going through the exact same contortionist argumentation when trying to explain Iraq that Blair is. They are humping Bush's leg as much as he is.

And, I'm Danish, we have a multi-party system, so the grass is greener on my side. Democracy is not only about getting things done, it's also about representation. If people do not feel or indeed are represented, the emotional safety valve of voter participation is clogged.

Firstly, I agree that a Merkel-ite approach would be an excellent one for Britain to adopt. I can certainly see a Cameron-led Tory government going down that route. I can also imagine a Brown-led Labour government trying it, although perhaps less convincingly. Anyway, I think we shall soon see how the parties and their leaders are positioning.

Secondly, idiotic idealism may be the spawn of the devil, but I was suggesting Labour would warm to PR for the entirely cynical and self-serving reason of clinging onto power. Even if it meant being top-dog in a coalition instead of governing alone. A Labour/Lib-Dem coalition would be essentially unbeatable with the current British political landscape. This would be rather unhealthy, I think, and would be a strong argument against PR in Britain.

By the by, my home country, New Zealand, switched to MMP a decade ago. In general I think it has been a positive change. Certainly no magic solution to anything, and coming with its own problems, but overall an improvement. I agree with Klaus that improved representation is a benefit. The necessity for compromise in government can be a positive or a negative, of course, depending on what is being compromised.

Who knows how such a thing would go in Britain, though. Things here are very different and the devil is, as usual, in the detail.

Ah, but with PR the political landscape would change very quickly. New parties left, right, up and down. Who knows how big Libs could be, or BNP, or Green Party, and what not. Scotland has PR for its parliament, it serves the role of England's political laboratory. Seems to work.

The main drawback of PR is when a 'natural' majority government is impossible to form, and enemies become bed partners. Poland's ridiculous current government comes to mind, as well as the Grand and Inefficient Coalition of Merkel. Italy too, of course. No such problems in Britland. I must say it speaks to the sensible pragmatism of the Brits that their arrangement hasn't been brutally exploited at some point. I mean, there really isn't anything stopping Labour from implementing Clause 4 except themselves.

True, things would change. If the NZ experience is anything to go by the final result would not be as different as many might hope or fear, though. I suspect that sensible British pragmatism would keep things running pretty much as they do now, which is all to the good.

I'm simply amazed you'd think that a Cameron gov't would be better than Blair. I have no great love for Blair's stupidity regarding Iraq. But it appears to me that Blair has managed other aspects of his political agenda more adroitly. Not to mention that the next PM, if Labor, will not be a Blair clone by any means.

In Cameron, you have an incipient Bush in waiting. May you get the disaster...er, outcome you wish for. No doubt, in a few months after the election you'll be back here railing against Cameron. Except, some of us will be able to tell you we told you so.

No one knows what Cameron would be like either. He's taken the stance of saying as little as possible about concrete ideas. Much like Royal. If Cameron should be as stupid as Blair, it still weighs against Labour to have been in power for too long, they are clearly becoming dysfunctional, as is usually the case with three terms. Though I'm personally opposed to Tory policies, I think a Tory term would be politically healthy, like the right-wing gov recently in Sweden. Shaking it up, shaking it up.

I am afraid Richard you think that I am a Left centrist. I am not.

Tory politics are actually my politics, ceteris paribus. I should add for your benchmarking that I rather like Ibn Bush's father as well and was no fan fan of Clinton until he proved a pragmatic centrist.

Afraid, then you're taking me for a fellow-traveller. I am not.

But, I just don't get it... are there any signs that a Tory government would be less pro-Bush Jr. than the alternative, a Labour gov under G. Brown? Or to put it differently, that it would be more pro-Lounsbury than a new new Labour? (On MENA issues.)

It seems to me both parties would want to keep some distance from the present White House policies, but a new Labour probably much more so than Tories. Their instincts seem to have been consistently on the wrong side so far, even if electoral opportunism pushed them to make some critical noises as Blair sank ever deeper in the Iraq morass. Or have I got this wrong? As I mentioned above, I am just a casual observer of British politics, if even that.

I fully accept that one could want to vote for Tories to lower taxes, ban rave, break the EU, smite the ungodly gays, or whatever. But on foreign (esp. MENA) policy they seem to me to have at best a slightly less charismatic and visionary version of Blair's present policies (like Bush's, but for literate adults). And at worst, they'd be even more doctrinaire and irresponsibly ideological in their support for the Washington's present geopolitical suicide attempt.