If saying we’d put Labour in or we’d put the Conservatives in is a vote loser, then saying we don’t know and we don’t care is the quick march to electoral irrelvance.

Would it be really to much to ask that Mr Clegg carried on the logic of the his preceding comments in the interview, to paraphrase: that Briatin faces enormous problems on the economy, on the environment, on foreign policy on trust in politicians and the entire political system.

The very worst result in a hung parliament would be for one party to assume it had the “stongest mandate” based on either the number of votes or number of seats it got on a low turnout in a discredited electoral system which creates huge distortions such as tactical voting, etc etc.

Obviously it was too much to ask.

Forgive me for not replying sooner – I seem to keep different hours to the majority of contributors. It was really useful to get your insider’s view. I do hope you make contact with the Leader’s Office or Andrew Stunell to offer to share that experience.

I recall the Humber scene and some Liberals including Cyril skipping down the street but I was celebrating in the streets of Liskeard at the time.

It would be helpful if you could confirm my recollection that Heath abstained in the Queen’s Speech. He could have voted it down (or signalled that he would do so and that he would move an immediate vote of no confidence), which would have brought Wilson to the telephone. That he did not, I think, strengthens my assertion that keeping us ‘out’ is one of the most important of considerations for the ‘other two’.

But you are right to remind us of the pressure it places on the Party. In 1997, under the Presidency of Bob Maclennan, a system for consulting local Party Chairs was put together. I hope Ros Scott is constructing something similar.

B

“It’s a pointless academic discussion because (a) he meant seats …”

Actually, I think it would be useful if you could explain why you think that’s what he meant, rather than just repeating the assertion, because of course that’s precisely what’s at issue.

If you can manage to persuade anyone in addition to yourself, then you’ll be able to congratulate yourself on having played a small part in shortening the discussion.

The idea that the Lib Dems should feel some sort of duty to work with the one party that fully supports the continuation of this awful system just because they happen to have won more individual votes is just absurd.

“Coming up next on LDV: Exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”

If your implication is that this is a pointless academic discussion, you need to think again.

If your interpretation is right, and if there are polls during the next election campaign anything like that MORI one, in Lib Dem/Con marginals the Tories are going to be screaming at every opportunity “The Lib Dems will keep Labour in power!”

That could have a devastating effect.

One recent poll 23/11 puts the Lib.Dems. only one point behind Labour and there has been at least one other other significant polling data that has placed L/D`s ahead by one point of Labour.The Tories according to the best election pundits are unlikely to get above 40% of the popular vote, that is required to form a Govt.on their own.

It is a non sequitor until after the General Election to ask who would Nick Clegg seek to form a Balanced Govt with and nothing can you read into his answer except that he would look first at the Party with the largest electoral mandate from the voters.

Until then there is everything to play for as Nick Clegg has shot up in polling data recognition because he has stood firm on a whole raft of many principled Liberal national issues, like Anti-ID Cards,cleaning up politics,the forgotten UK residence of Gurkhas, a fully funded `Pupil Premium’ for all children,`No Tax for all people earning under £10K’ and a properly costed Economic Recovery with making banks more and not less accountable to the public interest.

But if we are playing games, then, the most important thing to negotiate is a fixed term parliament. Without that we should be at the mercy of a PM able to ‘end the deal’ and dash to the electorate at his convenience. At which second general election we shall be annihilated as a political force.

However, my model from the recent past is still 1970, rather than 1974. And our job is to keep campaigning for a programme to rebuild Britain’s battered democracy and its battered economy rather along the lines of Clegg’s speech to the CBI today.

Coming up next on LDV: Exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Not necessarily. Who had the strongest mandate after February 74? That was far from clear.

“Almost certainly that will mean who’s won most votes; and almost certainly that will also mean they’ve won most seats.”

You know as well as I do that it’s simply not the case that the party with most votes would “almost certainly” win most seats. In that MORI poll, the Tories were 6 points ahead of Labour, but it was projected that they would have almost exactly the same number of seats.

From your post above, it seemed that you understood Clegg to mean “most votes”. Now you seem to be saying that it might mean something else, and that what it did mean might not be apparent until the result of the election was known. That’s not exactly my idea of a “crystal clear statement”!

“We seem to have ended up with a typical Clegg muddle.”

Well, the prize for muddling goes to the Independent. The article you cited says “most seats” in its paragraph 1, but it then says “most votes” in its paragraph 4!

Frankly I would not blame Clegg for being ambiguous here. Sometimes it is just wrong to make a clear unambiguous commitment which then proves to have been a mistake in the light of later events. If Clegg said “mandate = seats”, he would be open to ridicule for abandoning our belief in fair votes. If he said “mandate = votes”, then we would have become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Conservative party, since we would be committed to favouring no other.

You are – so unusually for you – being harsh on Nick. His words are not waffle, they are very clear.

The term ‘strongest mandate’ is very understandable … it is possible Labour could win the popular vote by one vote, and yet the Tories might have gained 100 MPs and Labour lost 100 MPs. It’d be hard to conclude Labour has the ‘strongest mandate’ in those circs.

So I think Nick’s quite right to say that it will be clear once all the votes are counted who has the ‘strongest mandate’. Almost certainly that will mean who’s won most votes; and almost certainly that will also mean they’ve won most seats.

But in our current electoral system it’s impossible to predict with cast-iron certainty.