“I think it is now for the Conservative Party to prove that it is capable of seeking to govern in the national interest,” Nick Clegg told the press, with a certain tone and emphasis on the words “capable” and “seeking”. There was something about that statement that felt odd; there felt more to it than what was actually said. There was a sense of discomfort, a sense of disappointment, and a sense of uncertainty – as you’d expect – but most of all I felt there was a sense of an attempt to avoid future blame. With all the talk of coalitions and deals, we are missing that the actual result – bad for the LibDems in terms of vote share and seats – is perhaps even worse for the LibDems than the figures initial show. Clegg knows this, and I am without doubt that Cameron does too.
Nick Clegg of course long wished for a hung parliament, but it’s always wise to be careful what you wish for. The LibDems hoped that they would wake today not only holding the balance of power but also in a situation where they had some degree of moral authority themselves – in terms of vote share if not seats, perhaps polling a strong second and nearing 30% – which would enable them to take a major role in the formation of a new government. A new government that is with Labour. During the campaign Clegg even spoke of ousting Gordon Brown in the event of a Lib/Lab deal, and Labour is their natural ally. With a good result they would have the ability to make the government feel sufficiently new and LibDem, even if mostly Labour, to aboid public wrath for propping up an unpopular Labour government – particularly in their affluent southern seats such as Cheltenham. That authority is though not existent and this leaves the LibDems in a corner – or rather on a fence.
When Clegg said “it is now for the Conservative Party to prove that it is capable of seeking to govern in the national interest” he was not inviting Cameron to pop round for a chat or giving his blessing to a Conservative minority government. That might be what it was meant to look like, but it’s not what it was. LibDems hate Tories, the seats they hold they do so by squeezing Tory-hating Labour voters; a pact with the Conservatives would cause an exodus. Yet a pact with Labour– their natural ally – without the orange revamp I discussed, would cause a different exodus of the more affluent voters they also need. It’s a lose/lose situation; LibDems have been able to play both ways, sitting on the fence – last night that fence collapsed.
Clegg knows that Brown has the constitutional right to the first attempt at forming a government, but by offering an olive branch first to Cameron he was hoping for a rejection. “Old politics strikes again,” he would say, attacking the Conservatives for being arrogant in refusing to share power and putting politics before the national interest. Having made the offer and been rejected, he could then sit back on the fence – opting for neutrality – and thus avoid blame for either propping up Brown or “letting the Tories in”. A kind of “Don’t blame me, I voted Liberal*” policy which, in the ensuing instability and tough times might even be popular as a campaign. (*Was it Tony Hancock who said this?)
However by (rightfully I add) making a genuine “big, open and comprehensive offer” to Nick Clegg to “work together in tackling the big and urgent problems - the debt crisis, the deep social problems and broken political system”, David Cameron has put the ball back in Clegg’s court as well as putting the country first. Do the LibDems accept this, shedding their anti-Tory vote, or reject this – putting electoral reform before the national interest on the economy, jobs, stability, schools, tax reform etc and shedding affluent liberal voters – to save a failed, rejected and unpopular PM?
Now Clegg must decide – the fence has been demolished. Either way they will lose voters and seats, realigning politics back to two parties. But then, wasn’t realignment something else they wished for?
