Despite losing 14% of their previous vote, despite an actual majority (53%) of people wanting a centre-right party, they got whatever it is the LibDems are this week. That's democracy based on party politics in action, right there.
But it's OK, because there's at least a 30% chance that the Lib Dems will be a centre-right party on any given day of the week. And still the yellow drones flock to them.
One thing, however, has been entirely misinterpreted by the Twitterati: "A lurch to the right is not a good idea for the Tories as their candidate was virtually a UKIPper" - nope, people weren't voting for the candidates, they were voting according to tribal loyalty or, in the best case, for what they saw as the parties' direction. The only thing a candidate can really do is fuck up their chances, like, say, wishing that a former Prime Minister had actually died in a bomb blast.
Effectively, Cameron's vacuous social democratic politics do not appeal to enough people, they only "won over" people who would vote for a Blue-ribboned dog turd.
People don't understand this "core vote" thing at all. The core vote will always vote for the party, it doesn't matter whether you lurch to the left or the right.
(I recently spent a weekend with some Labour activists and some of the stories they told me made even my hair stand on end. And yet, despite their very clear understanding that the people that they're supporting are bullies, sexual predators, backstabbers and people that they intensely dislike, THEY STILL VOTE FOR THEM AND WORK THEIR ARSES OFF TO SUPPORT THEM.)
As we say in Topeka, Kansas: "Da FUQUE??"
Having said that, everybody (even the tribal faithful) can see the yawning chasm of amoral, unprincipled emptiness at the heart of modern politics. People don't vote for Cameron in droves despite Gordon Brown's disastrous incompetence because he stands for absolutely nothing. He is the heir to Blair in that regard, but he lacks Blair's media control.
People yearn for politics where there are principles, where they vote for some thing. Politicians since Blair have set expectations that the "thing" they're voting for is all about throwing money from the magic money tree, and recipients of their "largesse" are quite understandably upset that this can't happen indefinitely.
Ultimately, nobody is happy with the way things are being run. It's much easier to accept austerity if there's a clear goal at the end of it. But since there isn't a clear goal other than "clearing up Labour's mess" and there is no apparent sign of the chosen path to austerity working, as raising taxes leaves people with less money in their pockets to restart the economy, everybody is unhappy with the Tory government.
The rise of UKIP is not entirely down to the innate bigotry of British people, it's mostly down to the fact that they appear to stand for something and they're not one of the current lot, all of whom are regarded as massive failures.
But for politics to have principle does not require a "lurch to the right", a "lurch to the left" or a "lurch to the middle". British politicians are fighting over a tiny patch of centre-right, authoritarian ground. Even the ostensibly less authoritarian, more left-wing Greens are just eco-fascists, who want to inflict their own particular brand of bullshit on the rest of us.
Why can't politicians take a stand based on less authoritarianism? It's clear since Blair what the economic sweet spot is, but when it comes to letting people live their lives, every government seems to be more and more authoritarian. How much further can they actually go before we start getting curfews and shit like that?
Why can't we get a party that says: "You know what? As a thank you for voting for us, we're going to get out of your face. We're going to stop micromanaging your life. We're going to trust you to do the right thing like you're trusting us to do the right thing"?