In defence of Nick Clegg

I’ve never had much time for the Liberal Democrats. At best they seem like wet Labour supporters who won’t make their minds up, and at worst, ruthless opportunists. But to my surprise I have discovered that the pasting Nick Clegg has received in the last 24 hours from the Right-wing press has engendered strange feelings of sympathy for the man.

To an extent he has only himself to blame. Having tried before the election to talk up the importance of votes cast over seats gained, he can hardly chide the Tories for their current attitude: that their own preponderance in both votes and seats gives them an unassailable status as Only Possible Coalition Partner.

This is politics, it’s not a display of personal holiness. Clegg knows, as pragmatic politicians always have, that in order to put one’s principles into practice one has to get into a position to do so. And he’s perfectly entitled to negotiate with the two larger parties to establish which of them will provide him with a better platform to bring his party’s views into the next government’s plans. Even before the election, Clegg indicated that, in the case of a hung parliament, he felt an obligation to turn first to the holder of most votes and seats. He honourably did so. But that did not constitute an obligation to agree to a deal on Cameron’s terms, whatever they might be. I’m sorry, but if you are negotiating with A, and B comes in with a better offer before you have reached agreement with A, you are perfectly entitled to start talking to B.

But, you might say, it’s supposed to be about political principles, rather than about an ugly squabble for power and office. Well, in what way are the LibDems denying their principles by talking to both sides? Politically they are certainly no nearer to the Tories than to Labour; in fact they fear a coalition with the Tories precisely because it might go down badly with their grass roots. And the principle for which they are best known is that of electoral reform: their current tergiversations are mainly aimed at furthering that principle. We may not like it, but we can’t fault it morally.

Finally, it is precisely the relative electoral failure of the LibDems which tend to exonerate them from the charge of unprincipled behaviour. Had they done as well as they had hoped, with 100-150 seats, then they would have felt both entitled and obligated to negotiate matters of principle with the major parties, more or less as equals. With only 57 seats they are a minor party and must take what they can get, trying to extract the highest possible price. That’s hung parliament politics, chaps; no point in getting on a moral high horse about it. The only question is whether we want more of it in the future; for that will follow electoral reform as night follows day.