LONDON – At the risk of being locked up and ceremonially beheaded in the Tower of London, here's a confession.

I've never much loved our royals.

Not the queen, of course.  It's the rest of them I worry about.

Put it down to my upbringing, my politics, my lack of gratitude, what you will.

VIDEO: Duchess caught in cash-for-access sting

It has always seemed to me there are too many royals and hangers-on enjoying a lifestyle of great wealth and privilege – without doing very much to earn it.

Shouldn't they at least be fine upstanding pillars of society?

I know that our queen does a good job, and that she's been doing it selflessly for almost 60 years. Her sense of duty is second to none. Hats off to her majesty. (I still have her coronation souvenir cup.)

But some of the others?

While Queen Elizabeth commands an awful lot of things – the British Army and the Church of England to name just two – she doesn't get to pick her relatives. And what a dysfunctional lot some of them have turned out to be. 

Take Sarah Ferguson, aka "Fergie," also formerly known as Her Royal Highness The Princess Andrew Albert Christian Edward, Duchess of York, Countess of Inverness, Baroness Killyleagh.

The former grandly-titled wife of the queen's second son, Andrew, has been caught on tape by an undercover newspaper reporter trying to sell access to her ex.

As stings go, this one is toe-suckingly excruciating. Fergie is seen as seedy, greedy and utterly naïve.

I met her only once.  Thankfully it was brief.

She seemed to have a huge sense of grandness, and I couldn't for the life of me work out why.  If she could have got away with wearing a tiara to the office, she'd have done it.

No question she got a rotten deal in her divorce – about $25,000 a year, according to news reports – and some say this justifies her attempt to make a little cash from her family connections. Why shouldn't she?

She could, of course, have opted to take a different course in life after her divorce.

But Fergie was wedded, if not to Andrew, then to her past: a staff of 12, a hairdresser, a borrowed Bentley. All the privileges of a princess – except for money.

Not that she hasn't earned lots, much of it in the U.S.

She just spent, or lost, most of it. As she crudely put it to the bogus businessman who entrapped her – she hasn't "a pot to **** in."

Not for the first time she's been caught out.

Back in 1992 embarrassing pictures of her canoodling with a Texan financier, while separated but still married to Andrew, caused a sensation, as well as a divorce. It wasn't so much that she was photographed topless – that's no big deal in Europe – it was that a man was sucking her toes.

"Vulgar, vulgar, vulgar" was the damning, if typically snobbish, verdict of her by one former private secretary to the queen. 

Now she's back in the headlines again, for equally uncomfortable reasons.

Does it matter?

Certainly to Prince Andrew, whose role as a goodwill ambassador for Britain's overseas businesses is inadvertently tarnished in this mess.

And doubtless to their girls, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, fifth and sixth in line to the British throne, and close to their mom.

To the rest of us, probably not as much as it should. Not worth losing one's head over, for sure.

Vote: Has the British press been too hard on the Duchess of York?
Watch the complete News of the World video

LONDON – Ladies and Gentlemen, please be upstanding to welcome the groom and groom.

Here they come: Mr. David Cameron – on the right – and Mr. Nick Clegg (standing quite a long way to his left).

I know I speak for all of you when I say what a gorgeous couple they make. 

Yes, I know it's a little sudden – but accidents do happen. Until yesterday none of us thought they even liked each other.

Christopher Furlong / Getty Images

Prime Minister David Cameron, right, and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, left, share a joke as they hold their first joint press conference in the Downing Street garden on Wednesday.Â

So please put your hands together for David and Nick, prime minister and deputy prime minister of the United Kingdom. If not quite till death do they part, at least (or so they've vowed) for the next five years.

Who'd have thought it? The Conservative Party leader in a political marriage to the Liberal Democrats' chief.  Whatever will the neighbors say?

Love, of course, changes everything. Especially the love of country or – if you insist on being cynical – the love of high office.

After five days of indecision Britain now has not one political party in power, but two.

The marriage is somewhat of a surprise, especially since the Conservatives' Mr. Cameron and the Liberal Democrats' Mr. Clegg have spent many long months throwing political pots and pans at each other.

They are, after all, at quite different parts of the political spectrum, and U.K. politics are notoriously adversarial.

Take, for example, the accusation thrown at Cameron by Clegg during the recent leaders' debates on the question of Europe. Cameron, he said, was aligning himself to "nutters, anti-Semites, people who deny climate change exists and homophobes." Not exactly sweet nothings.

So what happened?

Well, last week the nation held a general election to choose who should get the keys to 10 Downing Street. Worryingly, they didn't like anyone enough to give them sole tenancy.

But Mr. Cameron is not a man to take rejection lightly. He's had his eye on that particularly property for years. For his part, Mr. Clegg, as the third party in the U.K., has only ever got close enough to peer at it through the railings.

Until last Friday, that is, when the phone rang.

"Hello Nick. It's Dave here. I've been thinking about you a lot recently. I know we've said some wicked things about each other. But deep down I've always liked you. So I wonder if you fancy going down to the pub and making a little political hanky-panky with me?"

OK.  So I wasn't there and I made that bit up.

VIDEO: Cameron is U.K.'s new prime minister

But when the two leaders appeared at a joint news conference in the garden at Downing Street today, they did indeed seem like a pair of love birds – hamming it up for the press, with Clegg even pretending to storm off the podium. "Come back," called his smitten new best pal.

What caused the moment?

Just an unsubtle reminder from the press to Cameron about the answer he once gave to the question: "What's your favorite joke?" To which, he sheepishly admitted saying: "Nick Clegg."

Ouch. Anyone got the number for Raoul Felder?

Cameron and Clegg say this is not only the Real Thing for them, but it's also a fresh start for British politics – a "historic and seismic shift." A coalition government that will put the nation's interests before their own; where "grown-up behavior is not a sign of weakness but of strength."

Passionate politics, for sure. But as in any marriage, passion is not enough to make a union last.

If this one does, these past two days will prove to be historic for this island.

But as my late mother used to like to say of some of the married couples she encountered: "The good lord made them. But the devil certainly matched them."

So, ladies and gentlemen, please raise your glasses.

May theirs be a long and successful relationship. For their sakes – and for ours.

By Jack Reese
NBC International News, London bureau

LONDON – As daylight broke over the U.K. this morning, a cloud of uncertainty hung over Downing Street.

The people had spoken in the country's general election but – to quote a Labor minister – "we don't know quite what they have said."

For the first time since 1974 there's no outright winner. The Conservatives may claim to have won, but Labour isn't accepting it has lost.

SLIDESHOW: Britain goes to the polls

And the third party Liberal Democrats – who thought they had gotten a new political bandwagon rolling – were left looking at its flat tires after all the air had come out.

The political battle resumed at 10 p.m. sharp last night as politicians from the rival parties slugged it out all over the media over who had won the right to form the next government.

It was summed up neatly in an early exchange on the BBC, when one prominent Conservative politician told her Labor counterpart:  "You're losing your legitimacy to govern."

And he replied: "But you don't seem to be acquiring it."

VIDEO: Polls point to dead heat in U.K. election

Deal making begins
So now the horse-trading has begun, and the phones are buzzing between the political dealmakers in all the parties with seats in parliament. 

While publicly the leaders will talk of doing what is right for the country, the behind-the-scenes conversations will be a little less noble: Support us so we can form the government – and tell us what you want in return.

The biggest surprise of the night came not from the politicians, but from the voters, in what may turn out to be the U.K.'s very own "hanging chad" moment.  Many hundreds – perhaps thousands – found themselves unable to vote in time because of long lines at the voting stations.

They were angry, and in some cases the police were called to calm things down.

One told Sky News: "There's British troops dying to give Afghans the vote, and here – in the mother of democracies – lots and lots of people are being disenfranchised."

This morning there's talk of legal challenges, and demands to reform an archaic system that can no longer cope. 

As the morning mist becomes a grey afternoon, who gets to live in 10 Downing Street is anyone's guess right now. With one exception perhaps.

The British media reports that California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger called David Cameron last night to congratulate him on his "victory."

He may, in the end, turn out to be right. But not yet.

Click here for a helpful guide to the extensive coverage of the British elections

Newsweek: Cameron already in over his head

By Marian Smith, msnbc.com

LONDON – It's the tightest election in decades in Britain. For Americans, here are some ways to keep tabs on the vote, the issues and the outcome.

The latest polls put the Conservative party ahead of Prime Minister Gordon Brown's Labour party, but the race is far from over – the Independent newspaper reported today that four in 10 voters were undecided.  

If the Conservatives do pull out ahead as predicted, that doesn't guarantee their control of parliament, however. Here's where most Americans start scratching their heads. Just how does this system work exactly? Check out this Q &A from Reuters. 

Meantime, Britain's feisty tabloids kicked off their coverage with a typical slice of opinion Thursday.

www.thesun.co.uk

The cover of the conservative-leaning Sun tabloid on the U.K.'s election day, May 6, 2010.

The left-leaning Daily Mirror ran a picture of Cameron along with the words, "Prime Minister? Really?"  The Rupert Murdoch-owned Sun superimposed Cameron's face onto the ubiquitous "Hope" poster from President Barack Obama's election campaign.

Other newspapers were no less colorful – the left-leaning Guardian rounded up 14 election day front pages on its website.

There are excellent resources across the political spectrum on the Web for anyone curious about the election. Some of the best are: SKY News' election timeline, the BBC's useful interactive on where all the candidates stand on the key issues, and its thorough election seat calculator.

However, despite the excitement, the British media are prohibited from saying anything to sway the outcome of the election on voting day, so TV coverage will be a bit muted during the day.

But as results start coming after 10 p.m. local time (5 p.m. EST), the BBC will post live TV coverage online. An extensive list of BBC complete coverage links can be found here.

The SKY News channel's live TV player will also show election coverage online, but American viewers will only be able to see a reduced version.

Both the BBC and SKY are running live blogs on election day, as is Channel 4 News, which also posts clips of its news program online. 

Other good live blogs to watch are: The Guardian, The Times, and The Telegraph.

VIDEO: BBC's Matt Frei discusses the British elections with NBC's Savannah Guthrie

Until the final results are in, The Telegraph's assessment of five possible outcomes can provide comfort, inspire panic, or otherwise just inform.

And to read more from the parties themselves, go to official websites of the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

So what will happen next? "The normal thing is someone wins, someone loses, the guy who loses will resign by lunchtime and will advise the queen to call for the person who's won," Peter Riddell, senior fellow at the Institute for Government, told the Associated Press.

SLIDESHOW: Britain goes to the polls

But with an election so tight, a "normal" outcome isn't likely. The first exit polls are expected at 10 p.m. (5 p.m. EST) but a clear winner – and potentially a coalition partner – might not emerge for days.

LONDON – There's an uneasy calm in the British media right now – a truce in the middle of a battle.

After a four-week barrage of partisan politics, frenzied speculation, measured analysis, debates, insults, apologies and entreaties – otherwise known as a general election – it's suddenly gone quiet.

Peter Muhly / AFP - Getty Images

An elderly couple leave a polling station in west Belfast, Northern Ireland, on Thursday after casting their votes.

At 7 a.m. today the voting stations opened and the first of many millions of Britons began turning up to cast their votes for who will govern the country. British electoral law prevents anything being said or written to try to influence the outcome until 10 p.m. tonight – when voting stops and counting starts. 

So the fighting is over for now, and one of the parties is preparing for a victory parade.

But which one? Strangely, it's still too close to call with any certainty.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown – a rugged political heavyweight – has had a disappointment-strewn campaign that has left him trailing in the opinion polls. His party's been in office for 13 years and for many the glitter has worn off.

For their main rivals – the Conservatives led by David Cameron – Labor's fall from grace could have given them a shoo-in. But while Cameron's in the lead in the opinion polls, he's not home and dry.

This traditional two-horse election race has been complicated by a surge of support for the Liberal Democrats – for long the "also-rans" in U.K. politics. Their previously unknown but charismatic young leader Nick Clegg – with his campaign call for a change in the "old politics" – has given many voters cause to rethink their allegiances.

So the outcome may be highly unusual. While Cameron may win the popular vote and become prime minister, he may still end up with a minority of seats in the House of Commons. That will make his job of governing the country even tougher.

The only sure thing after the result is known?  The political battle will recommence – with a vengeance.

Q & A: How Britain's elections work

LONDON – So after the live microphone captures Prime Minister Gordon Brown's blunder, the live cameras see him turn up at the lady's door to apologize only hours later.

He is, Brown told the massed media through an uncomfortable smile, a "penitent sinner."

He had misunderstood what she was saying. Sometimes, he said, you say things you don't mean.

Suzanne Plunkett / Reuters

Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown leaves the home of Gillian Duffy in Rochdale, northwest England, on Wednesday after apologizing for calling her "a bigoted woman."Â

Damage limitation, or damage exploitation?

Making things better – or worse?

The opinion polls will tell us – in a matter of hours.

The betting is the voters will punish Brown for his gaffe, and that this could be the turning point in the election.

Brown's political future has been on a knife edge for weeks – but is his chance of staying in Downing Street now cut to pieces?

Brown's been accused before of being a "bully" and intimidating his staff. Calling a retiree a "bigoted woman" will only reinforce the doubts, and cast a shadow on his character. Pity, because those who know him say he is a decent man.

VIDEO: Caught on tape, British PM calls voter 'bigoted'

But in any closely-fought contest, everyone is on the lookout for that one big mistake.

In some cases it can be huge. A love child by a campaign videographer is certainly one to avoid.

And gaffes are not as rare as one might think. One of Brown's predecessors, former Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock ruined his own chances in the 1992 election by appearing at a party rally and seemingly turning it into a premature victory parade – before the votes had been cast. He lost.

And in 1979, Margaret Thatcher had to send an urgent handwritten apology by official car to a voter who'd been upset by an ill-judged letter written on her behalf that insulted her and hundreds of thousands living in public housing like her. The letter went on to figure prominently in Thatcher's opponents' campaign literature and cut her majority in Parliament (I remember it well as I broke the story).

But Mrs. T herself went on to an historic victory, becoming Britain's first female prime minister.

Mr. Brown, I suspect, will not be so fortunate.

By Ian Johnston, msnbc.com
LONDON - It's a politician's greatest fear: making the game-changing gaffe that can lose an election. U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown may have done just that.

With his ruling Labour Party trailing in third place in the polls ahead of the May 6 election, Brown was caught on tape describing a grandmother as "bigoted" Wednesday after she confronted him on the economy and immigration during an election campaign walkabout in Rochdale, northern England.

Thinking he was safe in the privacy of his car, Brown complained to aides that the 65-year-old woman had been allowed to speak to him. Unfortunately for embattled premier, he was still wearing a television microphone.

"That was a disaster," Brown said. "[They] should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that? … It's ridiculous."

Asked by an aide what the voter had said, he responded: "Everything, she's just sort of a bigoted woman."

Watch video of Gordon Brown's remarks; and check out our playlist of other famous gaffes

On discovering his remarks had been broadcast to the nation, Brown issued a swift reaction. "I do apologize if I've said anything that has been hurtful."

"I was dealing with a question that she raised about immigration and I wasn't given a chance to answer it," he complained.

Timing could hardly be worse
With the final of three televised leadership debates to be held Thursday night, the timing could hardly have been worse.

Brown, with an almost palpable sense of desperation, telephoned the woman in question. He told Gillian Duffy, who has previously voted Labour, that he was very sorry and, this time, described her as a "good woman."

But the damage was done.

"He is an educated person. Why is he using words like that?" Duffy said. "He is going to lead this country and he's calling an ordinary woman who has just come up and asked him questions that most people would ask him ... a bigot."

A "very upset" Duffy added that Brown's comments had cost him her vote.

Brown and his campaign chiefs must now fear that voters will, en masse, follow suit.

LONDON – British general elections haven't been the stuff of high drama lately. Following domination by Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives and then Tony Blair's Labour, the prize -- the "key to Number 10 Downing Street" (more about that later) -- pretty much only excites the wonks around Westminster.

Britons have seen it all before. There's a widespread, rather world-weary view that all politicians are the same. One in three voters don't even bother to turn out on the day.

By NBC News' Emily Wither

LONDON – Readers in the United States probably haven't even heard of mephedrone (not to be confused with methadone, a medical substitute for heroin), but the legal high is hogging the limelight here in Great Britain – and not for the right reasons.

The drug has been linked to the deaths of at least 25 people in the U.K., according to the Home Office's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.  

Mephedrone, which costs as little as $10 a gram, has become the fourth most popular street drug in the U.K. The white powered substance, which is usually snorted through the nose, came out of nowhere late last year has rapidly become Britain's new party drug of choice, replacing highs such as ecstasy and cocaine. Its effects are said to be similar to a combination of the two but in this case it's legal, cheaper and easier to buy – making it a favorite among young people. 

Andy Rain / EPA

Mephedrone for sale on the Internet in London, Britain in a photo taken March 29. The drug will become illegal April 16.Â

And, sweeping the country like a wild fire, it caught the British government by surprise, with worried parents wondering why authorities didn't move faster to ban it.

After a slow start, British Home Secretary Alan Johnson has scrambled to outlaw the drug, introducing emergency legislation that will classify it as a Class B drug as soon as April 16. In the U.K., Class B drugs, which include cannabis and other amphetamines, carry a maximum sentence of five years for possession or 14 years for supply.

While mephedrone has already been made illegal in Israel, Germany, Sweden and Denmark critics of the ban in the U.K say this is only a "knee-jerk" reaction and there are fears that banning it won't affect consumption, only drive prices up and lead to a decline in purity.

Two government drugs advisers have quit their jobs in protest over how the ban of the drug is being hastily handled. 

In an open letter of resignation posted on the Internet, drug expert Eric Carlin said, "Our decision was unduly based on media and political pressure." Carlin added that he wanted to concentrate on early intervention and drug prevention rather than criminalizing young people.

One teen, who wished to remain anonymous, said the proposed ban won't make a difference. "Everyone still do it; making it illegal will only make the problem worse."

On the street the party drug is commonly referred to as "Meow Meow" or "Mkat" because users say it makes you "purr." But there's nothing cute and cuddly in the side-effects, which range from anxiety to heart palpitations and, in the worst cases, sudden death.

Mephedrone often is bought in "head" shops, like the one in a mall in Stratford, London, one of the sites of the 2012 Olympic Games. Mystical Headshop sells the usual wares available in these types of stores – drug paraphernalia, new age herbs, candles and incense. A mephedrone-based product is also for sale behind the counter, priced at about $18 for a gram.

Emily Wither/NBC News

The "Mystical Headshop" sells a mephedrone-based product at prices starting aroun $18 per gram.

Steve, an assistant at the store (he would only give his first name), played down the dangers of the drug. "It's been very popular and as long as people are taught how to use it properly it's fine," said Steve. "But I'm glad it's coming to an end as it's got out of hand."

The shop owner, who declined to give his name, was quick to point out what he described as a strict I.D. policy at his store. He said that anyone who looks under the age of 21 would be carded and if they were underage would not be sold mephedrone. 

Mephedrone also is easy to find on the Internet, online classifieds offering 24/7 deliveries. "Ring this cell number and leave a message stating your order," they read. There is no mention of needing I.D to prove your age.

Mephedrone belongs to a group of drugs originating from cathinone, a naturally occurring stimulant taken from a plant called khat. Taking the cathinone, chemists have modified the ingredients and come up with stronger compounds such as mephedrone. To avoid lawsuits, suppliers cover themselves with a warning label that states "not for human consumption."

While there's nothing new about herbal blends and synthetic chemicals being used as so-called legal highs, the market for them is growing. Chinese and Southeast Asian chemists in particular are using legal loopholes to make stronger variants for users to get their hands on.

It's for this very reason that the British government has been somewhat slow to ban methedrone, saying its wants to also cover other cathinone derivatives in an attempt to stop similar drugs flooding the U.K. market from abroad.

"We're looking at a generic definition [for the ban] so we embrace all of the chemicals involved in this so that unscrupulous producers cannot just change a couple of chemicals and have a legal drug," Johnson, the British Home Secretary said.

In British schools one line of the powder costs just over $1, according to media reports, and the tabloid press is awash with stories about children as young as 14 trying it.

Mark McEwan said he became hooked on the drug after one line. "It's a lovely buzz," the 28-year-old told ITN News. "But it isn't nice in the end ... when you lose all your weight and your muscles start getting eaten away and you start twitching and shaking when you're not taking it."

Stephen Welch, one of the thousands of worried parents calling for a ban of mephedrone, told ITN News that his 19-year-old son's life has been devastated by it. 

"There's been nothing like it before in terms of the speed that it's hit the market – what with the extraordinary availability of it and also the price," said Welch.

Since mephedrone's popularity has grown so quickly, the British government hasn't had time to carry out much research themselves. 

To add to its knowledge, the government's drugs advisory council worked with FRANK, a drug information and advice hotline, to gather information. It also worked with Mixmag, a popular dance magazine, which conducted a survey of its readers in order to gather evidence about the prevalence of the substance.    

Chris Hudson from FRANK told msnbc.com that calls about mephedrone to its hotline increased by over 10 percent between January and February of this year. And he said hits on its cathinone Web site page jumped from 33,000 in October last year to over 80,000 last month.

The survey carried out by Mixmag of 2,200 British clubbers at the end of 2009 found that mephedrone had emerged as "Britain's favorite new drug." 

"The big drug story of 2009 was the unstoppable rise of mephedrone, the 'ecstasy alternative' powder which has risen from nowhere to become the sixth most popular drug in the survey for recent use," the Mixmag results said.

Despite the U.K. situation, the U.S. government is taking a wait-and-see attitude. Mephedrone is currently legal in the U.S. and is not on the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's list of controlled substances. 

 "It's not something that we've seen in the U.S. really," said DEA spokesman Rusty Payne. "We know about it – but it's not really on our radar as far as addressing it right now."

Payne explained that the process for scheduling a substance – or putting it in on the federal list of controlled substances – is an "exhaustive" process based on the substance's medical use, potential for abuse and involves input from the medical, scientific and legal community. The list of controlled substances in the U.S. vary from "Schedule 1" substances that have a high potential for abuse and no medical use, such as heroin and LSD, to "Schedule 5" substances that are considered to have a low potential for abuse and are used in medical treatment, such as codeine.

 "In order to prove that something is harmful, you have to have real-life situations that dictate action," he said. "Like, here is why the DEA thinks this should scheduled, because of XYZ. Well we don't have XY and Z yet, we just have a bunch of stories coming out of the U.K.

"We've got our eye on it, but I know of no U.S. incidents," Payne added. "That's not to say that they don't exist, but I haven't heard of a thing."

Britain's upper legislative body, the House of Lords, backed the proposed ban on mephedrone Thursday, after a bill passed the House of Commons, meaning the drug will become illegal on April 16.

LONDON – Politics here may be "going American" – but there are still a few traditions that remain quintessentially British.

The Vatican's "Holy Smoke" notwithstanding, where else on Earth is the change of government marked as it was on Tuesday: Was that the smell of Earl Grey tea, wafting from Buckingham Palace?

Pool / Reuters

Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown leaves Buckingham Palace after meeting with Queen Elizabeth to request for a dissolution of parliament before a May 6 general election, in London Tuesday.

For 20 minutes, Prime Minister Gordon Brown paid a visit to the real head of state – Queen Elizabeth II – and, after years of rumors and suspense, begged her indulgence to dissolve the current parliament.

The queen, it appears, acquiesced gladly: on April12, the Mother of All Parliaments will be no more. A new election will be held on May 6, in exactly one month. There, it's done.

Leaked weeks before, this was perhaps Britain's worst-kept secret. But at least the electorate here is kept on its toes – there is no first Tuesday in November, every four years, to deal with. In Britain the government can last a day, or as long as five years. In the end, it's all up to the queen, and that cup of tea.

"Let's go to it," barked Brown, announcing the news on his return to 10 Downing Street, surrounded by his cabinet. And, with that, the parliamentary election campaign had begun.

Off to the races
By the end of Tuesday, Brown, the Labor Party leader and incumbent, had already shaken hands with bemused shoppers inside a supermarket in Kent ("I would have rather talked about taxes than what I did with all the left-over Easter eggs," quipped one employee). Conservative Party leader and frontrunner David Cameron had sat beside hospital patients in Birmingham, looking way too healthy as he mixed with the sick. And the third-party leader Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat and potential king-maker (if some polls are right and there's a "hung parliament" with no clear majority), had taken his John McCain-like campaign bus to Watford, where he told the local townsfolk that this election was not going to be a two-horse race.

There was no time to lose: a one-month campaign for something as monumental – and complex –  as the British parliamentary elections? It's hard to believe for those of us raised in a country where the next election campaign often begins on the day after the last one ended.

VIDEO: British parties launch month-long election campaign

Promises of "change" from all three major British parties may sound all too familiar to us Obama-contemporaries, but there are some differences with the American Way that Britons stubbornly cling to: one is the so-called "first past the post." In British politics, it's all or nothing, there is no proportional voting here. The winner in each constituency takes the seat, the losers get to wear ribbons in their party's colors.

For years critics have decried the unfairness of a system that allows big parties (like Labour during the last election) to win 55 percent of the seats in the House of Commons ... with only 35 percent of the vote! But "first-past-the-post" – a horse-racing term, I'm told – has become as British as bangers & mash. Or the Black Rod – that quaint man dressed all in black, whose three  taps of his mace on a chamber door has marked the opening of a new session of parliament since the 14th century.

So, let the kissing of babies and staged photo-ops in shopping malls and state hospitals begin.

Let Cameron, the posh Etonean, out-denim and leather the late James Dean. Let Brown, the Scottish preacher's son, pretend he's Mr. Everyman. Let the Conservative leader cry out for radical change and the Labor leftist call to stay the course. It's election time. Anything goes. And at least in Britain it only lasts 30 days.

NOTE OF CLARIFICATION FROM JIM MACEDA:

Some of you have raised good questions about "first-past-the-post" in your comments and it would appear that I've generated more confusion than intended!  

Here's the deal: the U.S. system is similar to the British, but there are subtle differences. In Britain, it's one winner – one seat. The party with the most seats chooses its leader, who then – with a majority – heads the nation.

In America, it's true that the winner of each, individual state usually wins all of that state's electoral votes, but those votes are proportional to the population. And, in two states, the winner and losers divide the electoral votes. There is proportionality built into the system.

Don't even try to talk to the British about "electoral" votes! Despite all of the Made-in-America electioneering here, there remains a fundamental difference between the British and American ways of politics – in the U.S., people vote for people who lead parties; in the U.K., people vote for parties, who anoint leaders. It's the basic difference between presidential and parliamentary democracy. And long live the difference!  

LONDON – "Vote for Change" and "Change That Works for You."

Sound familiar?                  

Now that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has officially announced May 6 as the date for parliamentary elections, politicians have hit the campaign trail – and "change" is very much in the air.

More than a few eyebrows were raised when David Cameron's Conservatives adopted "Vote for Change" as their election slogan and then pledged to hire 5,000 community organizers – even mentioning U.S. President Barack Obama by name during the announcement. Launching his campaign Tuesday, the Conservative leader said his party represented "hope, optimism and change."

Wpa Pool / Getty Images

Conservative party leader David Cameron arrives at Leeds City Museum as his election campaign got under way on Tuesday in Leeds, England.Â

Not to be left behind, the Liberal Democrats are vowing "Change That Works for You" – exactly the same words Obama used to describe a two-week tour highlighting his economic policies while battling for the Democratic nomination in June 2008. 

The ruling Labour Party opted for "A Future Fair for All" as its slogan, but even Brown has admitted that Britain needs change. However, he insists that he is best placed to deliver it. "The issue is not whether to change, but how," Brown told supporters during his speech to the Labour conference last fall. He maintains the Conservatives would threaten Britain's fragile economic recovery by dramatically cutting spending in the short term, risking a "double dip recession."

The adoption of the change mantra comes in the wake of revelations that British lawmakers had been claiming public money for expenses including moat-cleaning and "duck houses." Opinion polls suggest that fed-up voters are poised to leave no party able to claim a majority of the 650 seats in the House of Commons when they go to the ballot box next month.

Analysts say it's little wonder that U.K. politicians have taken a page from Obama and the successful "Hope and Change" message that propelled him to the White House.

Dr. Dan Stevens, a senior lecturer in politics at Exeter University, drew parallels between the "feeling of dissatisfaction" in Britain after 13 years of Labour Party rule and the frustration felt by many Americans during George W. Bush's second term. "There is a great deal of respect for Obama's campaign here," said Stevens.  

But unlike in the U.S., optimism is in short supply on this side of the Atlantic.

Professor Michael Cox, co-director of the IDEAS center for international affairs and diplomacy at the London School of Economics, noted that while Obama tapped "into a wellspring...of hope for the future," the situation is very different in Britain. 

The Labour government has embraced huge deficits in a bid to tackle the recession. And major public services cuts are widely anticipated following the election, no matter which party wins.

"There's not too much unbounded optimism out there," said Cox. "There are some pretty unfortunate and unpleasant decisions that will have to be taken by whoever is in power next."

VIDEO: British parties launch month-long election campaign

So far, the Conservatives' version of "change" seems to be leading the day. According to a poll by the Sunday Times, Cameron's Conservatives doubled their lead last week to 10 points. The Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper – which has backed Cameron – put the Conservatives at 39 percent, Labour at 29 percent and the Liberal Democrats at 20 percent.

Cameron, 43, a millionaire whose only non-political job was in public relations, has been nicknamed "Tory Blair" – a reference to the once-wildly popular and telegenic Tony Blair, who won three national elections. Opponents allege that Cameron is a triumph of style over substance and lacks experience.

The Conservatives' "change" campaign has not just been plucked from the mid-Atlantic. Anita Dunn, who was Obama's communications director at the White House until November, is advising Cameron's campaign. And Bill Knapp, a former Obama and Clinton adviser, also is coaching the Conservative leader.

Brown has an uphill battle distinguishing himself as an agent for change. After all, he was entrusted with running Britain's economy for a decade while serving as Chancellor of the Exchequer under Blair.  After being chosen as the party's leader by Labour members, Brown moved into 10 Downing Street in 2007, but his popularity plummeted as the economic downturn took hold.

In February, a book alleged that Brown had bullied some members of his staff. 

And last month, a documentary that suggested a former Labour Cabinet minister was prepared to exploit his political contacts for the benefit of commercial clients – at a cost of $7,500 per day – dealt Brown another blow.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives launched a billboard campaign bearing an image of a grinning Brown and the words "I doubled the national debt – vote for me." They have also highlighted the links between Brown and the union behind recent strikes by British Airways employees.

Cox predicted that Labour will try to portray Brown, 59, as a "solid piece of Scottish granite" and the dynamic Cameron as "a bit of plastic."

"Politics in Britain has become more presidential over the last 15 or 20 years," Cox added. "It's had a lot to do with the 'cult of personality' in modern media coverage. If you look at politician in the 1950s or 1960s, they had bad suits and bad teeth in Britain. Then look at Tony Blair, he's the perfect modern politician with nicely cut hair and a tan."

Now a divisive political figure following his controversial support for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Blair returned to the limelight last week to throw his support behind Brown. He ridiculed the Conservatives' "Vote for Change" slogan, saying: "Change to what exactly?"

The closeness of the race means that Nick Clegg, leader of the center-left Liberal Democrats, could emerge as a "kingmaker" for either Cameron or Brown. Polls suggest that the winning party may be required to form a coalition government with the Lib Dems.

Clegg, who earned headlines in the British press recently after telling a journalist that he had slept with "no more than 30 women," has been urged by colleagues to "take risks" during three American-style head-to-head debates – which will be held for the first time in British history.

"Everybody's waiting for the Dan Quayle moment," Cox said. "But they can all think on their feet and I don't see anyone committing a massive gaffe. I bet by the third debate we'll all be bored."

In addition to the U.S. president's slogan being pilfered, some commentators highlight signs of a "Michelle Obama effect," with the party leaders' wives taking a more prominent role in recent weeks than in the run-up to previous U.K. elections.

The Independent newspaper recently branded the women the politicians' "not-so secret weapons." Like the Obamas, all three couples aiming for 10 Downing Street have young children.

"Everybody wants to prove that they're a member of a normal family these days," Cox added.

Sarah Brown has almost 1.2 million followers on Twitter, has described her husband as her "hero" and is seen as crucial to bringing out his "softer side."

When Cameron revealed last month that his wife, Samantha, was pregnant with their fourth child, the News of the World tabloid claimed the announcement had sparked a "baby bounce" in his popularity.

Clegg's Spanish-born wife, Miriam Gonzalez Durantez, has said she's "willing to help" but points out that she's already juggling being an international lawyer and mother of three. She isn't eligible to vote in the British election.

"We don't have the same type of first lady as in the U.S. and traditionally they haven't been as prominent, but a spouse is seen as an asset and we're going to see them on the campaign trail," Stevens said.