With every day that passes, it seems more likely that the Liberal Democrats, even if they lose more than half their seats, will determine – together with the SNP – whether the next government will be led by Labour or the Tories. They made their choice in 2010, and have been living with the consequences ever since.
In 2010, their decision was undoubtedly influenced by the parliamentary arithmetic, which made it easier for them to choose the Tories, as as that produced a two-party majority government, whereas an alliance with Labour would have required four or more parties to secure a majority.
Yet the effective choice had already been made before the election results were declared. Nick Clegg had already announced during the campaign that he would speak first to whichever of the larger parties won the most seats. It was already obvious that this would be the Tories: the only uncertainty was whether they would be able to govern alone.
Clegg has now made it clear that once again he (or his successor) would prioritise the larger party. I thought this an eccentric decision in 2010; this time I find it frankly incredible. In 2010 I had recently returned from 30 years as a foreign correspondent in Brussels, from where I was able to follow, and report on, political developments in all the EU member states.
Most of these states were permanently governed by two- or multi-party coalitions. At every election the smaller parties had to decide whom to collaborate with, and I never recall any of them making their decision in the same way as Clegg. Much more usual were decisions on the basis of which parties were closer in policy terms.
Had the Lib Dems followed this course in 2010, they would most probably have finished up in partnership with Labour. This time, the policy overlap with Labour is even more striking. It is difficult to suggest a single key policy area where the Lib Dems are closer to the Tories. A second coalition, or voting arrangement, with them would surely be an alliance against nature.
Last time, Clegg covered his actions by ensuring that he had majority support among Lib Dem MPs and the governing bodies of his party, under its “triple lock” procedures. He did not consult the nearly 7 million electors who had voted for his party. Within a few months of his taking office the polls were showing that around half of these had changed their allegiance.
Many of them did so because of his broken promises on student fees. More of them, however, probably defected because they had never expected that a self-proclaimed left-of-centre party would choose to jump into bed with its traditional opponents.
Five years on, the polls still show that more than half of the Lib Dem voters have abandoned their party. Yet Clegg stubbornly refuses to draw the obvious conclusion. In launching the party’s manifesto yesterday, he declined to express any preference between the two larger parties, expressing a passionate desire to participate in any coalition that was on offer.
In taking this stand, he is defying the lessons of history. On five other occasions before 2010, Liberals or their Whig predecessors entered into coalitions or electoral arrangements with the Tories – in 1794, 1835, 1886, 1918 and 1931. Each time the Tories benefited, and the Liberals were decimated or absorbed into the Tory fold.
If they now make the same bad choice for a second successive time, who can doubt that they will suffer the same fate, while losing any pretence of belonging to the centre-left?
