Sir,

Your leader today on hung parliaments contained a number of dubious assertions.

First, you say that in February 1974 Mr Heath’s offer of coalition foundered on his refusal to include electoral reform. As a survivor of those discussions I have to say that this was not the most determining factor. One was that even with the dozen Liberal MP’s added to the Tories there would not have been a government majority (hence no ability to deliver electoral reform or much else for that matter).

Second, Mr Heath had gone to the country early seeking a mandate on “who governs Britain” and been refused it by the electorate.

Then you suggest that a hung parliament would be economically disastrous. The last time we had a balanced parliament was in March 1977 when the Callaghan government had gradually lost its majority.

The facts speak for themselves: the very day that the Lib-Lab agreement between Mr Callaghan and myself was announced the pound and the share index both rose. Inflation had started on a sharp upward trend in the last year of the Heath government and had reached the alarming rate of almost 20% that month. During the 15 months of the so-called Lib-Lab pact it fell to under 9% only to climb again during the minority Labour period that followed, returning to 19% in the first months of the Thatcher government. Mortgage interest fell from 12.25% at the start of the pact to 8.5% at its end only to start upwards again after it, reaching 15% under Mrs Thatcher.

These facts do not fit the hysteria promoted by Mr Cameron about no overall majority, and more voters obviously are considering that a government which includes Nick Clegg and Vince Cable is likely to be a better government than one without them.

Finally, you call for Mr Clegg to plump in advance for whom he would work with, but as you rightly point out the present electoral system has its vagaries, and Nick Clegg is absolutely right to stick to his argument that the electorate must first decide the composition of the Commons, and that the party leaders must thereafter act responsibly in accord with their decisions. It is called democracy.

David Steel (Lord Steel of Aikwood)

The finding comes in a YouGov poll for The Sun which finds that 37% think in such circumstances Cameron should try to form a “grand coalition” with Labour and Lib Dems and a further 24% think he should “seek to work with the Liberal Democrats”. Only 20% said he should “seek to form a minority government, without doing any deals with any other party”.

Although The Sun has previously come in for criticism for commissioning poll results that it hasn’t published, this result is published in the bottom left corner of page 4 in today’s edition.

Last night’s Question Time ended on an extraordinary note. The public are more in favour of a hung parliament than the Tories care to admit. But I never expected an audience to heckle and boo Liam Fox when he warned of an indecisive election result triggering a run on sterling…

This should be a salutary lesson to Cameron’s team. People seem to like the idea of politicians working together. The worm in the election debate shot up when Clegg spoke about a cross-party co-operation to tackle the deficit. And it took a dive when Cameron warned of the dangers of a hung parliament leaving Brown in power.

Full post and link to watch again here.

“Lib Dem rules could paralyse government,” warned the Scotsman

“Paralysis, indecision and political chicanery,” were the fear of the Daily Mail’s full page editorial.

“The IMF could have to be called in,” thundered Ken Clarke!

Far from making a positive case to earn your vote, they resort to the desperate tactics of the protection racket: give us a majority or our boys in the City will hurt you.

But is this really a threat?

Channel Four’s Fact Check says “no”; so does CentreForum’s chief economist Giles Wilkes.

For starters, the country has no government majority in parliament right now, with the election in full train, and the City seems to have reacted with equanimity to this news. It seems unlikely that they will have some kind of nervous spasm should the question take until slightly later than May 7th to decide.

The Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell, has laid out the process for the election and what happens in a “hung parliament”, making it clear that the existing government continues in office, albeit with reduced powers, until the outcome of the election is settled.

Arguably, the country is better run when there aren’t politicians trying to legislate on every issue – that’s certainly a case that the Conservatives put most of the time; odd that they don’t put it now.

The prospect of a hung parliament has become a serious possibility since the first leadership debate. But there have been no major convulsions in the markets as a result. The pound actually rose following the debate, and the stock market remains steady.

Other countries manage the process perfectly well without reaping economic ruin: Belgium took more than a year to form their government and was none the worse for it. Canada’s TSX market index has climbed 55% during the current minority parliament. Germany is the strongest economy in Europe, and has for decades been run by a succession of coalition governments. If anything, it has made them stronger, moderating government decisions and providing the stability that business prefers, compared with the wild swings of policy – even within governments of the same Labservative faction – that the British have suffered.

It certainly seems an extraordinary claim that Britain is so enfeebled economically that the City will panic at the first sign that it will not have a Prime Minister to hold its hand.

Nor is it even based in sound economics. While it is true that the British Government is hugely indebted, most of that debt is held by British banks – Britain as a nation is not excessively in debt to the rest of the world. So why would there be a Sterling crisis?

For that matter, the crisis of the Callaghan/Healy years, which led to the IMF intervention, took place in 1976, the formal loan being agreed on 7 June that year, a good nine months before Labour lost its majority in March 1977.

It shows the Conservatives’ ignorance of history to link the previous Sterling Crisis to minority government.
Either that or George Osborne just doesn’t realise that 1976 comes before 1977.

We have had thirty years of red or blue Labservatives with supposedly “strong” governments, and yet pathetically subservient to the vested interests of unions or bankers or the media barons. And where has it got us? Recession, unemployment, boom, bust, recession, unemployment, boom, bust… and now the biggest bubble, the biggest crash, the longest recession in history.

And do the Tories really think that we in the mood to be bullied by the same City bankers who just put us through two years of Credit Crunch and recession with their foolish gambling?

Einstein said: insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Don’t give in to fear and threats: we can break the grip of the vested interests in the City or the Papers. In this election, a vote for the Liberal Democrats – every single vote for the Liberal Democrats – is a vote to do something differently.

Let’s rewrite a few myths.

Editor’s note: the wrong version of this story was inadvertently published. The honed piece now here is the author’s final version.

[The Tory strategy] is to scare the voters witless about the prospect of multi-party democracy and a real change in our corrupt political system. All manner of pestilence is threatened to befall the British people if they vote other than Tory. … Of the 14 countries that enjoy the top AAA rating for creditworthiness with all three rating agencies – Fitch, Moody’s, and Standard and Poor’s – 10 have coalitions or minority governments including Germany, Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands. None of those 10 has ever had to call in the IMF. …

Anybody who tried to explain to a German that coalition government was bound to lead to a “national calamity” would find the conversation surreal, since the country with one of the strongest reputations for sound public finance has never had a formal single-party government since the dawn of the Federal Republic.

Chris continues:

… if single party government has been so effective in peacetime, why does Britain have the biggest budget deficit of any major European country, the worst recession since the 1930s and the shame of participating in an illegal invasion of Iraq?

You can read his article in full here.

Readers who liked this article may also like to see today’s Independent report: Tory claims that hung parliament would cause meltdown are dismissed.

For a good precedent, look no further than the last hung parliament in 1974, when Ted Heath’s Tories won over 200,000 votes more than Labour under Harold Wilson, but Labour won 4 seats more than the Tories. It’s sometimes pointed out that (with almost Brownite self-delusion) Heath refused to immediately resign, and didn’t move out of Downing Street on the day after the election, 1 March 1974.

But in fact the Prime Minister still resigned on 4 March – three days later. The rationale after the election was “We don’t yet know who’s won this election, but we know who’s lost it.” Even if Labour were still the largest party, if Gordon Brown were to squander a majority of over 60, then it may take a few days for the post-election dust to settle, but he would still have lost the confidence which he previously had some tenuous claim to, and he would have no choice but to resign.

If you want to go back further, you could cite the two previous hung parliaments of 1923 and 1929. In both cases, an incumbent Conservative government had lost its majority, but remained the largest party, and clung on for a month until its King’s Speech was defeated on the first reading. Labour, as the second largest party, then took office as a minority government. Both of these cases underlined the total futility of such attempts to hold on to power by your fingernails. And Brown is very familiar with both precedents – he wrote a PhD thesis and biography of 1920s Labour MP James Maxton. The idea that he might try to cling on without the support of his own party by citing a 1920s Conservative precedent which ended in failure seems laughable.

As for the scare stories on the effect of uncertainty on financial markets, this is largely irrelevant given the timetable as it stands. The full results won’t be known until Friday afternoon, and the markets will be closed over the weekend. By the time they re-open on Monday 10 May, four days after the election, the new environment should be plain for all to see.

If anything, this spells out the urgent need for fixed term parliaments with fixed transition periods, and the folly of expecting new ministers to all be at their desks when they’re still exhausted from the campaign trail – but for the immediate purpose of bringing down the Brown government, the weekend is more than enough time.

So don’t let this lie go unchallenged on the doorstep. Liberals haven’t endured the taunts of the other parties for so long, simply to prop up either Labour or the Tories at the first opportunity.

Cable was unaware of such meetings having taken place with Lib Dem shadow chancellors before previous general elections. The talks were a sign that the Treasury was “taking seriously” the prospect of his party playing a leading role in economic policy in what could be the first hung parliament since 1974.

Vince has also declared himself ready to serve as chancellor in a hung parliament. Although that raises questions over how he might end up in such a situation, it certainly focuses the mind on whether Vince Cable or George Osborne would make the better chancellor.

Cable, whose credibility has grown throughout the economic crisis, made clear that, if he was to be offered the chancellorship in a hung parliament, he would jump at the chance. He did not want to be “the most unpopular person in Britain” as public spending is slashed, he said, but added: “I wouldn’t be in this business if I wasn’t willing to take the responsibility if it was to come my way.”

March 16th in history saw the resignation of Harold Wilson in 1976; in 1995, Mississippi finally ratified the 13th Amendment and officially outlawed slavery in US.

Today is the birthday of Isabelle Huppert and Jimmy Nail.

2 Big Stories

Police investigate Labour MP Ashok Kumar’s death

Police and doctors are investigating the death of a Labour MP whose body was found at his home yesterday.

Dr Ashok Kumar, 53, had been working as normal, with major commitments as parliamentary private secretary to Hilary Benn, the environment secretary. He was also campaigning for Corus steelworkers’ jobs in his Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituency. His body was found after anxious staff failed to rouse him by phone and called emergency services, who broke into his home.

Steve Richards has noticed something about Nick Clegg

Suddenly it is almost impossible to switch on the TV or radio, read a newspaper or a political blog, without Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, featuring in some form or other. For a long time Clegg despaired of being noticed in the media. Now he is almost as ubiquitous as David Beckham, with slightly more hope of being an active player this summer.

There is, though, a twist. Every time Clegg is interviewed in this period of unusual prominence he is asked a variation on the same question. Sometimes it is all he is asked in interviews lasting a considerable length of time. What, Mr Clegg, would you do in the event of a hung parliament?

2 Must-Read Blog Posts

What are other Liberal Democrat bloggers saying? It’s still close enough to conference that debates and speeches are still on people’s minds. Here are two posts that have caught the eye from the Liberal Democrat Blogs aggregator:

• Millennium Elephant’s unique take on the proceedings

The City of Brum is FAMOUS for MAKING THINGS, not least CARS including the famous cat-monster brand of Jaguar, but also all sorts of things from custard and chocolate and HP Sauce to jewellery and Bakelite. Also two of Great Britain’s famous failed banks were founded here (Lloyds Superbank wot we own, and Midland wot was bought up by the HSBC), but never mind that.

So it was GOOD to be debating the importance of reclaiming Great Britain’s position as a manufacturing nation there in the Iron City. And Captain Clegg made a point of this in his big speech too, saying we need a change from an economy based just on City bankers gambling.

• Caron Lindsay is slightly critical

I am going to be critical – but only about the quality of the video. Dark suit and black backdrop do kind of make him look a bit strange.

It really must be a nightmare to wake up on the morning of a keynote speech with a bad throat, but despite that Nick did really well.

Spotted any other great posts in the last day from blogs that aren’t on the aggregator? Do post up a comment sharing them with us all.

And Two Tuesday Bonus Links today:

• Electech has kicked off the official election barchart grumbling season
• Left Foot Forward have some information about SNP smears.

Here’s what Tom has to say about Lib Dem shadow schools secretary David Laws declining to take the media bait asking whether the party would back Labour or the Tories in the event of a hung parliament:

David Laws, the LibDem MP, said on Any Questions on Friday that any such decision would not be taken until after polling day. Thank you, David. Thank you for confirming what I’ve been saying for years about the undemocratic nature, not only of the LibDems but of their most precious policy – proportional representation.

It’s entirely consistent of Laws to say that the public will not be consulted before the LibDems make a decision. That’s the essence of PR: let the little people have their vote, then ignore what they say and start bartering away the very policies they voted for behind closed doors and without reference to them.

There’s some bizarre and twisted logic contained within Tom’s rant-ette, so let’s try and unpick it. First, Tom states “the public will not be consulted”, which is an odd way of talking about a general election result. After all, it won’t be the Lib Dems’ decision if we end up with a hung parliament: it will be the consequence of the way the public has voted.

What Tom prefers, in fact, is for the public to have a vote, and then for Labour to ignore it. In 2005, almost two-thirds of the voting public (and almost three-quarters of the electorate) did not vote for Labour. The result? Labour formed a government with a majority of 67 seats over all other parties.

As for “bartering away the very policies they voted for”, what could be clearer than Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems saying at this stage that the party will stand by its four key policies in any negotiations which might prove necessary of the public declines to give any of the three parties a clear-cut victory?

And Nick is quite right to refuse to indulge mischief-making Labour/Tory MPs (and the media) asking him to define the undefinable of what precisely constitutes the “strongest mandate” which will give either party the right to seek to govern alone, or with the Lib Dems.

As Nick has made clear, a ‘photo finish’ is highly unlikely: almost certainly there will be a clear-cut winner (at least in first-past-the-post terms). More importantly, the general election campaign hasn’t even started yet. Given how the political narrative has transformed in the past two months, who’s to say it won’t change again in the coming two months? Who knows what will be thrown up by the leaders’ debates, for example?

It would be remarkably daft of Nick, or any Lib Dem, at this stage to try and second-guess the electorate, or ignore the fact that how things look on May 7th will be very different to how they seem on 14th March. Remarkable daftness is, of course, just what Tom Harris and Iain Dale are hoping for. Nick, wisely, is not going to give them what they want.

When asked what the Lib Dems would do in the event of a hung parliament, Nick’s strategy is to say what the Lib Dems would want to get from any sort of deal, which mysteriously matches closely with the four key themes. Nick says we would want to have the first £10,000 of income tax free, improve education, fix the economy and banking system and fix our broken parliamentary system.

Asked whether Nick can guarantee those as red lines of any deal, the response is that the more people vote Lib Dem, the more chance we have of getting what the Lib Dems are proposing.

He’s right. Were there to be some post-election deal, the Lib Dem’s bargaining power would be completely dependent on the party’s strength in parliament. Until the Nick knows the hand he has to play, it’s fair to hold back from laying out a detailed negotiating position.

It’s also a good political line; a sensible way to answer the question that’s dogged Lib Dem and Liberal/SDP Alliance leaders for every election for the last quarter of a century.

The exact wording of this rule, disclosed only after repeated inquiries to Liberal Democrats headquarters this week, sets a high bar for clearing “any substantial proposal which could affect the party’s independence of political action”.

A pedant would point out that it was “disclosed” here back in November. Then it was Steve Richards I took to task (for calling the rule – which was debated in public at party conference – “secret”).

Perhaps you should add us to your reading list Tom

1. A coalition is a non-starter, so let’s just rule it out now

It’s quite simple: the majority of party members will not for a single moment entertain the idea of a coalition with either Labour or the Tories unless they commit to a fair voting system – and that quite simply isn’t going to happen after the coming election (though it’s conceivable after a second inconclusive election).

Remember: the party membership, along with the party’s parliamentary party and federal executive, all have to approve any coalition (it’s what’s known as the ‘triple lock’). Even if Nick and Vince were to recommend a coalition – and I’ve no reason to believe they would – the party would almost certainly reject it. How could we keep this Labur Government in power for a fourth term of authoritarian rule? And how could we hand the keys of Number 10 to David Cameron and his right-wing Tories? We just couldn’t. So why spend the next two months pretending either option is a possibility?

2. The Lib Dems need a clear, simple answer

Let me put it this way, which headline do you want to read:

• Lib Dems rule out coalition government (Guardian)
• Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg ‘undecided about coalitions’ (BBC)

The first: strong, clear, decisive. The second: weak, ambiguous, waffly. Both are news headlines from the same day, 15th February. We might be able to get away with the latter in pre-election times; the media will hang us out to dry if that’s the best we can come up with in the heat of a general election campaign. We’ve had fair warning (see above). We’ve been here before (the 1992 campaign, when speculation of a Lib-Lab pact helped John Major sneak a surprise victory). Let’s get the message nailed down now.

3. Nick and Vince need to say the same thing

It’s fantastic that the party has such a strong, popular leadership team in Nick and Vince, a perfect blend of energy and experience. But a dual leadership team poses problems: anyone who remembers the 1987 ‘Two Davids’ election campaign, and the way the media continually probed their policy differences, will know what I mean. True, I don’t expect Nick and Vince to clash on big issues: but even the slightest hint that they appear to have different views on the party’s hung parliament strategy will be pounced on. There’s no room for nuance, with Nick seeming to hint one thing, Vince another. We need a clear statement both can confidently repeat.

4. We need to kill the question and focus on Lib Dem issues

The moment we say, ‘The Lib Dems won’t go into a coalition’, the media will have to ask us something else. Until we give that answer, and for as long as the polls point to a hung parliament, every interview Nick and Vince give will include a question on whether the Lib Dems will go into coalition. That is a real waste of our opportunity to broadcast the Lib Dems’ four key messages of fairness: fair taxes, a fair start for children, a fair, sustainable economy, and fair, transparent and local politics.

5. The public needs to know the Lib Dems can’t be bought

There is of course a risk in ruling out a coalition: the Lib Dems are a party committed to pluralist politics, to constructve engagement with other parties – so why rule out a coalition? The answer’s clear: we don’t need a formal coalition to exert influence, the votes of our MPs are all we need. As I put it here last month:

By remaining outside of government, however, the Lib Dems can command considerable influence, both by blocking unpopular measures and by working with both parties to deliver positive reforms.

What the party absolutely cannot do is look eager to trade in its votes and independence for the perks of ministerial office. Ruling out a coalition is the clearest possible demonstration that the Lib Dems and our senior MPs are putting national interest above self-interest.

Those are my five top reasons why Nick should rule out a coalition now, and get over and done with what is in any case inevitable. You’ve got an important speech coming up this weekend, Nick: no time like the present …

So although The Guardian story has been ridiculed – after all the paper has variously reported that the party wants a coalition with the Tories, wants a coalition with Labour or doesn’t want a coalition at all – Stephen’s three tests for the party’s approach to the hung Parliament question still apply:

There are three crucial responsibilities of a party leader in the months leading up to an election. First, they must keep their party both united and motivated: it is activists’ campaigning footslog on the doorsteps which will determine the final result. Second, they must crystallise for the voters what it is the party stands for, and project that message loud and clear. And third, they need to help the party to win the maximum number of votes and seats possible.

What’s the answer to these tests? Read the piece to find out.

The Liberal Democrats are planning to rule out forming a coalition government with either the Conservatives or Labour if Nick Clegg holds the balance of power in a hung parliament after the general election. … senior Lib Dems are making clear that Clegg has no interest in taking cabinet posts and would focus instead on winning support for four key Lib Dem demands.

Clegg would be prepared to throw a lifeline to the Conservatives or Labour by allowing either party to pass a Queen’s speech if the aspiring government makes concessions in the four areas, described as the Lib Dem “shopping list”:

• Investing extra funds in education through a pupil premium for disadvantaged children.
• Tax reform, taking 4 million out of tax and raising taxes on the rich by requiring capital gains and income to be taxed at the same rate.
• Rebalancing of the economy to put less emphasis on centralised banking and more on a new greener economy.
• Political reforms, including changes to the voting system and a democratically elected Lords, that go further than proposed by Labour.

Clegg would give the minority government a chance to deliver and would not expect his demands to be met in full by the time of the Queen’s speech, the first major parliamentary test of a new administration. “People expect stable government,” one aide said. “It is right to assume that if one party has a mandate it should have a crack at governing. If no party has a majority, then people will need to talk to each other.”

An ally says of the “shopping list”: “You can wield influence without being in government. You could even negotiate a programme for government through a Queen’s speech with 40 to 50% of your ideas taken up, or negotiate on individual bills.” Clegg is opposed to forming a coalition because aides and senior MPs argue it would be highly dangerous for the Liberal Democrats to become minority partners in a coalition government on the grounds that the majority party could manipulate the timing of the next election to suit it. The Lib Dems have long campaigned for fixed terms at Westminster to deprive the prime minister of the initiative on election timing.

This seems sensible to me. LDV’s survey of party members last week showed majority support for the Lib Dems cooperating with either Labour or Tories so long as at least some of the party’s manfesto promises were met.

Moreover, specifying four areas where the party would expect to see progress focuses any talk of hung parliament squarely on Lib Dem priorities – the media will have to start asking Gordon Brown and David Cameron if they would be prepared to adopt Lib Dem policies in order to stay in government if they fail to win a majority.

It’s feasible to imagine either Labour or the Tories being prepared to move towards the Lib Dem position on points 1-3 as listed by the Guardian. Point 4 – the urgent need for electoral reform – would appear to rule out the Tories from benefiting from Lib Dem support, so opposed is David Cameron to any change to the status quo. Yet the Guardian also makes clear the party’s antipathy to Labour – ‘One MP said: “We don’t want to be tied to a rotting corpse.”‘

What do LDV readers think of the announcement? Discuss …

First up is Martin Wolf from the Financial Times, writing today that Britain can love hung parliaments:

The bogeyman of a hung parliament is being used to terrify British voters. What is needed, it is argued, is a government with a strong majority, to rescue the UK from the threat of national bankruptcy. This is nonsense. The UK does not face national bankruptcy and, if it did, would not need strong single party government to save it. Has everybody forgotten that in the gravest crisis ever faced by the UK, Winston Churchill governed with a coalition? Why is the present crisis so very different? So poorly has single-party despotism governed the UK that I would welcome a coalition or, at worst, a minority government.

And Martin might also have added that the last time this country faced a financial crisis as grave as the current one – the 1930s – coalition government was also the flavour of the day.

But, wait, there’s more:

No serious person denies that the country confronts a huge fiscal challenge. Among those serious people are, of course, the leadership of the Liberal Democrats. I cannot be the only person who believes that Vince Cable, the party’s shadow chancellor, is far better qualified to address this challenge than any current member of the Conservative front bench. Indeed, the latter has blown worryingly hot and cold over its elusive plans for fiscal stringency.

Which seems the right moment to bring in our second broadsheet columnist: Boris Johnson. Writing for the Telegraph on Monday, BoJo bemoaned the media’s occasional mentions of the Lib Dems:

Can anyone explain the current ubiquity of Nick Clegg? … It’s because the media are obsessed with the idea that there is going to be a hung parliament – and that Clegg will be the kingmaker! In this fantasy world we go back to a 1970s-style Lib/Lab coalition in which Gordon Brown remains Prime Minister, shamefully clinging on to Downing Street with the help of the Lib Dems, while Cleggie and (say) Vince Cable are rewarded with seats at the Cabinet table. It goes without saying that I think the media are wrong to be talking up this ghastly prospect.

Vince as Chancellor: a ghastly prospect, eh, Boris? London’s mayor so clearly has his finger on the popular pulse.

What Boris has described is, of course, the Tories’ worst nightmare: a Lib Dem who is so patently more competent than their own shadow chancellor that it hurts them. But for the rest of the UK – the voters who will actually decide the election – the prospect of the Lib Dems holding the balance of power is probably quite an attractive one.

Of course it comes laden with potential pitfalls for our party, but let’s just look at this from the voters’ perspective for now. And from their vantage, Martin Wolf is right: there’s no reason to worry about a hung parliament. In fact, they may enjoy it a whole lot more than the thought of five more years of Gordon’s stale nothingness, or a flimsy government with Dave as titular head dominated by his party’s right-wing base. As Martin pithily concludes:

Given the task ahead, government by whim and by whip is just not good enough.

Now we’ve asked this question before in an attempt to get the media to understand the position of Lib Dem members (despite the wilful attempts of BBC2′s The Daily Politics to mislead viewers with flawed polls). But we’re going to try it again to see if this time the media will listen to what LDV’s sample of Lib Dem members actually think about what the party should do in the event of a hung parliament.

Some 200 members of LDV’s private discussion forum (open to all Lib Dem members) answered the following question:

If the result of the next general election is that the Lib Dems hold the balance of power in a hung parliament, what do you think should be the party’s response if Labour/Conservatives offer some form of deal which satisfies at least some of the party’s manifesto commitments, including the promise of a referendum on electoral reform?

And here’s what they said:

• 23% – Steer well clear of any form of negotiations or coalition with Labour or Conservatives
• 6% – Be ready to negotiate only with Labour on that basis
• 5% – Be ready to negotiate only with the Conservatives on that basis
• 63% – Be equally ready to negotiate with either Labour or the Conservatives on that basis
• 3% – Don’t know / No opinion

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the results are almost identical to the results we received the last time LDV asked the hung parliament question – back in September, 61% of party members who responded said the party should be ready to negotiate equally with either Labour or Tories so long as key elements of the party manifesto were satisfied. Today the figure is 63%.

Just 11% of party members believe the party should enter into any form of negotiations exclusively with only one of the two other main parties – exactly the same proportion as in September – while almost one-quarter continue to believe we should avoid both of them like the plague.

It’s a clear message: the ball is not in the Lib Dems’ court in the event of a hung parliament – it is up to Labour and the Tories to say clearly where they are prepared to compromise if they want to secure Lib Dem support in the event of a hung parliament.

Perhaps the media will now start asking that question of Gordon Brown and David Cameron as much as they ask the hung parliament question of Nick Clegg?

I’m a practical kind of person. I don’t like the high levels of dogma which seems to attach itself to party politics and elections. There are good people in every political party, and no major grouping is 100% wrong. So I make judgements on people and parties as I find them. …

Actions speak louder than words and the last time the Tories were trying to run the country they did not grace themselves in tolerant or liberal minded social policy, Clause 28 being an infamous example. To those who say they’ve changed, I reply “you can’t talk yourself out of a problem you’ve behaved yourself into.” …

As for Labour, here we can judge on recent performance. Once again, there’s a depressing adherence to authoritarianism – a belief that people must be instructed rather than nurtured.

But it’s Lembit’s views on the prospect of a hung parliament – clearly influenced by his experience in Wales – that are perhaps most interesting:

So what should Lib Dems do in the event of a hung Parliament. Ironically – despite my confident analysis! – I can’t say. That’s because of what I’ve learned in successive coalition talks in Wales. It’s actually not about how one feels about the other parties. It’s about the Programme for Government. That’s much more important than the colour of the party. If you can find a partner which will deliver a large proportion of your agenda, and which you can trust to work in reliable cooperative spirit, then it’s do-able. Personally, I FEEL that tends to favour the Labour Party, but the Tories are trying desperately to court the Centre Left, just in case. They’ll have to try very, very, hard indeed to convince me it’s not just the same old Tories in new Eton blazers.

You can read Lembit’s blog article in full here.

Nick Clegg faces a backlash from grassroots Liberal Democrats if he moves his party too close to the Conservatives in a hung parliament.

Well, yes, he probably would. Which is why he won’t. Unless the Tories are prepared to implement key Lib Dem policies. Which they won’t. Can’t put it much clearer, can I?

But back to Messrs Morris and Savage: what evidence do they supply to justify their suggestion that Nick faces a ‘backlash’ from Lib Dem activists?

Three are offered. The first is the most recent LDV readers’ poll result (though they don’t have the grace to acknowledge it): ‘Their centre-left sympathies were made clear in a poll last week which asked activists to choose between Mr Brown and Mr Cameron for Prime Minister after the election. Their verdict was definitive: 58 per cent named the Tory leader as the worst option, with 42 per cent for Mr Brown.’

As I wrote at the time of the 1,000+ readers who voted: ‘I never tire of reminding folk – especially any journos on the look-out for an easy story – [they] may or may not all be Lib Dems.’ The Indy just preferred to assume they are.

The second piece of evidence offered by the Indy was a flawed, misleading, dated poll for the BBC’s Daily Politics which LDV has already debunked in some depth here.

And the final piece of evidence? Some random, de-contextualised quotes from Lib Dem bloggers:

Christopher Lovell, president of Leeds Liberal Youth, said: “A Conservative government will pursue fundamentally different objectives from a Liberal Democrat one and, although there may be an … overlap in policy, many Liberal Democrats would find it hard to support even a small amount of what a Tory government tried to do.”

Jane Watkinson said: “Both parties are a compromise to what we stand for but, if it came down to it, Labour are closer to our values as we do share common ground in aspects such as constitutional reform and taxes.”

A blogger from Norfolk wrote: “Yawning gaps exist between the Liberal Democrats and the Tories on many issues, and David Cameron knows this. So why did he make his statement?”

(I love, by the way, that the Indy couldn’t even be quite bothered enough to find the identity of the ‘blogger from Norfolk’, who will need no introduction to the Lib Dem blogging community as Nich Starling).

No reason they shouldn’t be quoted, of course: all are fine bloggers. But it’s pushing it to suggest that their quotes – or any of the others that might have been filletted from other blogs – somehow constitute a ‘backlash’ against Nick Clegg.

In short, this was nothing more than an over-hasty, content-free and careless cuttings-job. The Indy can do better, much better. Fortunately they still do, sometimes. So let me finish on a positive note, with this clipping from Steve Richards in today’s same edition, And the first-round winner is… Clegg:

Perhaps the struggle to shape credible election winning messages in a recession explains why Brown and Cameron both stress similarities with the Liberal Democrats. For Nick Clegg there is one tiny danger in the love-in. If voters believe Cameron’s tendentious claim that his party has moved closer to Clegg’s they might find it easier to vote Conservative in seats currently held by the Liberal Democrats. But on the whole Clegg should be jumping with joy at this latest twist.

Cameron and Brown flatter him and the media will take note by paying him more respectful attention. Such flattery has not happened to a leader of a third party before. Blair wooed Paddy Ashdown in 1997, but John Major did not do so. In 1992 neither Kinnock, nor Major showed any public affection for the Lib Dems.

Clegg has both Cameron and Brown taking him seriously. Finally he is in the game. As a significant bonus Labour goes into the election calling for a change in the voting system. Some of Brown’s advisers urge him to make more of this, to declare at every opportunity that if Labour wins this will be the last election under “first past the post”.

Brown cannot bring himself to do so with any great enthusiasms because he is no enthusiast. It does not matter. The commitment is made. … Clegg is the winner of these early skirmishes and he has hardly uttered a word.

Much of what we have heard so far is unsurprising: absurd pledges on spending, vitriolic attacks on cuts. But one development is new: both the old parties now claim to be almost identical to the Liberal Democrats. David Cameron and Gordon Brown are ostentatiously flirting with Liberal Democrat voters, clumsily trying to woo them — and by implication me and my fellow Liberal Democrat MPs.

And then it’s onto the ‘hung Parliament’ question:

This year’s general election is likely to be the most open and unpredictable in a generation. So you have a right to know where we stand. I can promise voters wondering whether to put an “X” against the Liberal Democrats that there are no backroom deals or under-the-counter “understandings” with either of the other two parties.

As Nick notes, the last 50 years have seen a transformation in British politics – from the 1950s, when Labour and the Tories hoovered up 98% of the votes cast, to the 2009 local elections, when other parties, including the Lib Dems, scored 40%. The reason, at least in part, is simple:

On so many issues in recent years, Liberal Democrat instincts have been in tune with the British public: on Iraq, civil liberties, political reform, the environment, fair taxes, the excesses of the City of London, the rights of Gurkha veterans.

Which brings us to Nick’s ringing declaration:

We are, and have shown ourselves to be, very different from the other two parties. My message to Mr Brown and Mr Cameron is simple: the Liberal Democrats are up for real change. We are not up for sale.

So, how would Nick respond in the event of a ‘hung Parliament’? Well, there are two governing principles:

One, we will respect the will of the public. The voters are in charge and the decision is theirs. If voters decide that no party deserves an overall majority, then self-evidently the party with the strongest mandate will have a moral right to be the first to seek to govern on its own or, if it chooses, to seek alliances with other parties.

Two, regardless of the post-election arithmetic or whatever power we are granted, there are four objectives that we will unwaveringly pursue.

And Nick maps out those four objectives:

First: fair taxes. Our plan would mean that the first £10,000 you earn would be free of income tax. This would be paid for by taxing income and capital at the same rate, phasing out special pension subsidies for highest-rate earners, switching tax from income to pollution and introducing a mansion tax on the value of homes above £2 million.

Second: a fair start for all our children. We will cut class sizes and provide more one-to-one tuition to children by introducing a new “pupil premium” in our schools.

Third: a fair and sustainable economy that creates jobs. We will use the money from one year’s cuts in current spending to create tens of thousands of new jobs in public transport, a national programme of home insulation and new social housing. We will be honest about where savings must be made to balance the books and we will break up the banking system.

And finally, fair, clean and local politics. We will introduce a fair voting system, ensure that MPs can be sacked by their constituents if they break the rules, return powers to local communities and stop tax avoiders from standing for Parliament, sitting in the House of Lords or donating to political parties.

Seems like a good list to me … sound economic management, tax cuts for the poorest, climate change, fair votes and decentralisation, pupil premium: pretty much all the touchstone liberal issues.

What do LDV’s readers think of what Nick has to say? Has he done enough to put to bed the interminably tedious ‘who would the Lib Dems back’ question beloved of worn-out political hacks? Or has he opened up a can of worms unnecessarily?

On this day in 1973, the UK joined the European Community, along with Denmark and the Republic of Ireland. On January 1, 2002, Euro coins and banknotes became legal tender in twelve of the European Union’s member states.

It’s a quarter of a century since Britain’s first mobile phone call was made. In a seemingly random intersection of the Fates, comedian Ernie Wise was calling from St Katherine’s Dock to a room above a Newbury curry house – the then office of a little company called Vodafone.

2 Interesting Stories

Is a Labour-Tory coalition unthinkable? Only until you think about it
Martin Kettle muses in the Guardian on a hung Parliament:

It seems innocent to assume that either Labour or the Tories would automatically turn first to the Liberal Democrats in those circumstances – or that the Lib Dems would necessarily deliver. The big parties could calculate that they would be better off in a marriage of convenience with a historic enemy they respected, from which they could withdraw with dignity when the moment was right, rather than to embark on a more permanent entanglement with a Lib Dem party which at bottom they each despise.

The more one looks at the evolutionary dynamics of British politics, the more serious the grand coalition option may one day become. Is a Labour-Conservative deal really unthinkable? Only until you start thinking about it.

At least the next government won’t be decided on the toss of a coin… or will it?

Coin tossing through the ages

The Telegraph has an interesting history, including this:

Some elections have been decided by the toss of a coin when no candidate has secured a majority. In May 2007, Conservative Christopher Underwood-Frost only held on by winning on the toss of a coin after he tied with his Lib Dem rival on 781 votes for the Lincolnshire seat.

2 Must-Read Blog Posts

What are other Liberal Democrat bloggers saying? Here are two posts that caught my eye from the Liberal Democrat Blogs aggregator:

• Dip Me in Gaiety and Throw Me To the Creationists

Alex Wilcock’s last-minute entry for blog post title of 2009 snatches the trophy and raises it aloft whilst whisking readers through Darwin, Gladstone, Queen Victoria, faith schools, Twitter, Dr Who, university interviews, creationism and coming out. Phew! And Alex calls Gladstone a polymath…

• Hey! Minister! Leave them kids alone!

Sara Bedford doing what she does best: taking high-blown theory and nailing it down to ordinary people’s experiences.

Spotted any other great posts in the last day from blogs that aren’t on the aggregator? Do post up a comment sharing them with us all.