And look! Just as the Keynesians predicted, the economy immediately slumped, apparently proving that the last thing a government should do in a weak economic climate is suddenly kick the legs out of the demand side of the economy. It could happen here, Obama should argue! It’s still too soon, and the U.S. economy is too fragile, to make austerity the watchword of the day.

It would be a risky gambit, to be sure. Not only is the appetite for a full-throated defense of fiscal stimulus virtually nonexistent among the American electorate, but there isn’t even any certainty that Britain’s woes can already be attributed to the austerity drive. Some commentators are blaming a bad winter for depressed construction activity. Others are noting that the bulk of the government cuts have yet to kick in, so the causal connection is thin.

But heck, if Republicans can already claim that their midterm election victory should get credit for recent signs of economic growth, than surely Democrats have every right to at least flash a caution light. The GOP has made its position clear — just hours before the State of the Union address, the House passed a resolution calling for an immediate return to 2008 spending levels, which, if enacted, could be a sucker punch into the gut of an economy just off the deathbed.

Of course, Obama most likely won’t mention the U.K.’s travails, as he tries to portray himself as a fiscal conservative who still wants to build high-speed rail and boost education spending. But the point at which all this will really get interesting is when the data start to come in on the next U.K. fiscal quarter. Because the backdrop to those numbers could quite likely be a fierce political fight over extending the debt ceiling in the U.S. It’s hard to see the likes of John Boehner and Eric Cantor trimming their sails because of anything that might happen overseas, but if the U.K. slips into full-on recession right in the middle of a swing to austerity, that’s going to make the politics of spending cuts in the U.S. a lot more interesting.

The Lib Dems may not form a full-blown coalition with the Tories. Another strong possibility is something called “confidence and supply,” which forms a minority government that isn’t in constant danger of a vote of no confidence dissolving the government.

You can follow BBC news live here.

And in case you want to know just how goofy Parliamentary democracy can get, make sure to read this Guardian article, which begins by inexpertly translating a slip of paper that Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg made some notes on and concludes by saying a Lib Dem/Labour pact was impossible because of bad body language by cranky Labour MPs.

Update: And Gordon Brown has stepped down, ending 13 years of New Labour rule in the UK. Brown’s driving to Buckingham Palace to formally resign. David Cameron will meet the Queen soon afterward to be appointed PM.

According to the Guardian:

Brown is proposing a “progressive” government, comprising Labour, the Lib Dems, and presumably the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the SDLP and the Alliance. Electoral reform would be a priority.

And it’s been revealed that Labour has been having semi-secret meetings with the Lib Dems already, which will probably not help those Tory negotiations.

So! After the so-called “Americanisation” of the recent British elections, including live televised debates between the three party leaders for the first time in British history, it’s now entirely possible that the next prime minister won’t be any of those three people.

Amusingly, the BBC asked a “bookmaker” to predict the next Labour leader, who very well might be prime minister of the U.K.:

Bookmaker William Hill has David Miliband odds-on favourite – at 4/7 – to be the next Labour leader. Also on offer: Alistair Darling at 8/1, Alan Johnson at 10/1, Ed Miliband at 11/1 and Ed Balls at 12/1.

David Miliband is the 44-year-old foreign secretary. He’s the son of Marxist theorist Ralph Miliband. Ed is his brother (his support runs to the left of David’s). Darling is the chancellor of the exchequer. Johnson is the home secretary. Ed Balls, a longtime Brown advisor, is the longtime secretary of state for children, schools, and families. He also has no shot at becoming the prime minister, because, come on, his name is “Ed Balls.”

But a new leader most likely wouldn’t be selected until September, which means the Liberal Democrats would have to join a coalition with the incredibly unpopular Brown as prime minister for the time being, followed by someone the nation didn’t “vote for.”

You can listen to Brown’s statement here, and right now the BBC is live streaming its news broadcast here.

The once-hated Conservatives (also known as the Tories), after spending 13 years out of power trying to reinvent themselves, managed to retake a narrow plurality. They’ve won 36 percent of the vote, and 298 seats.

And the Liberal Democrats, long stuck in a distant third place, stayed there. Voter disgust with both major parties failed to materialize into the expected surge for the center-left third party, which got 23 percent of the vote. Breaking all expectations, the Lib Dems actually suffered a net loss of six seats in Parliament (again, according to the count so far), bringing them down to 53 in total.

These results wouldn’t have been that out of place in any of the recent, previous votes. The vaunted three-way election turned out not to be, and 2010 now looks like a fairly regular swing of the pendulum, five points to the right.

And yet the electorate has failed to render any kind of clear decision, and produced a once-in-a-generation hung Parliament. Tory leader David Cameron seems right when he says, “Labour has lost its mandate to govern this country.” But no one else has won it. So what happens next?

The party leaders have to figure out among themselves whom the Queen will call up and ask to form a government. As the incumbent party, Labour traditionally gets the first crack. But it now looks like a coalition with the Liberal Democrats will likely be insufficient to get them over the top. In an apparent overture to the Lib Dems, Prime Minister Gordon Brown last night suggested that the country needs “far-reaching reforms to our political system” — the main item on the Lib Dem agenda. But even if the numbers are there for a center-left coalition — which they don’t yet appear to be — it looks like no coalition will form behind Brown; if Labour wants to run the show, the party may have to oust its unpopular leader.

Besides, Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg has said that, by dint of their clear edge in the popular vote and seats in Parliament, the Tories have earned the right to try to form a government. However, it’s much more difficult to imagine the Lib Dems cooperating with the Tories than with Labour. Cameron and the Conservatives are simply much less amenable to the progressive third party’s ideas, in virtually every area. What Clegg and the Lib Dems want most is a switch from the current system of electing Parliament from single-member constituencies with first-past-the-post voting, in favor of a proportional representation system that will give the third party a much better shot. But, while Labour is open to this, the Tories are apparently not.

It is technically possible, though very difficult, to govern without a majority. Cameron will make a statement at 2:30 Greenwich Mean Time — 9:30 eastern — about how the Tories plan to form a government. They may try to bring into a coalition the eight members elected from the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party. That wouldn’t put the Conservatives over the top, but it’d bring them a bit closer, and maybe make a minority government viable.

All of this is to say that there’s no obvious way to run this country. The voters wanted to punish Labour, but still don’t trust the Tories, and seem not even to know what to make of the Lib Dems. Whoever does get control of the government, lacking anything in the way of a broad base of support, will have an awfully hard time keeping it. If the last hung Parliament, back in the 1970s, is any evidence, then a split like Britain has today is a recipe for indecision and ineffectiveness, and another election soon. Cameron is probably the best bet for prime minister a month from now. A year or two from now is anybody’s guess.