Five Days that Didn't Change Britain

Nope, didn't watch it. Mainly because I watched it pretty much live on various news channels when it was actually happening. It was dull then: therefore, definitely not worth reliving now.

But what also bothers me is the title - these weren't five days that changed Britain. They were five days that changed the figures at the head of Britain's government. And the change is not as radical as so many seem to want to suggest. We've had Tory led governments before. We've had coalitions before. And Labour has been booted out of office before.

Furthermore, why would the inauguration of the ConDems really change Britain? Sure, their leaders are far less awkward, maladjusted and downright weird than Prime Minister Brown was, but being less dysfunctional than your predecessor doesn't mean you represent a radical change from what has gone before. Both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats adhere to the same fundamental assumptions about the limits of political action as the then outgoing Labour government. It's a bit like finding out that your brain cancer has gone but you've been diagnosed with heart disease - basically, you're still fucked, just in a slightly different way.

It ties in beautifully with the ConDem assertion that we have a new politics in this country to claim that the negotiations to form the coalition were "five days that changed Britain". Unfortunately, it doesn't really connect with the reality of the situation. Then again, the title of "Five Days That Maintained The Political Status Quo in Britain" is far less punchy, and also far less likely to attract the sort of viewer who is desperate for the next installment of Eastenders...