What should we make of his “mandate” comment?

It’s unusual for the Lib Dems to get drawn into discussions about possible election results and what they’d do in a hung parliament. There are no easy answers and all scenarios tend to lead the discussion towards Labour and the Conservatives rather than the Lib Dems.

So Clegg’s comments yesterday on GMTV form a very interesting position. He said:If a party has got more support and has got a clearer mandate from the British people than any other party, even if they don’t have an absolute majority, then I think we live in a democracy, that party has got the moral right to seek to govern.

The key words are ‘support’ and ‘mandate’, both of which could be variously defined but for the Lib Dems, so keen on PR, share of the vote would have to rank highly.

That automatically gives the Conservatives a strong advantage, given that in most hung parliament scenarios the Tories will have won more votes than Labour.

There is some wriggle-room in that ‘the right to seek to govern’ isn’t the same as ‘the right to govern’ but it does indicate at least a first crack of the whip.

Would Clegg and his MPs really put Cameron into Downing Street if they held the balance? It wouldn’t necessarily be a popular move with much of the activist base and most of the Lib Dems’ (current) seats face Tories as their main challengers but the alternative - maintaining a Labour government that had lost its majority and lost on votes - might be even worse.

That said, a Tory minority administration might not be all bad for the Lib Dems. It’s much easier to oppose a government than another opposition - even one that you put into power - especially when the government’s very likely to be faced with extremely tight budgetary constraints.

Clegg’s bigger problem could be avoiding alienating potential supporters who feel strongly about which of the larger parties they don’t want the Lib Dems to align with.

If we believe YouGov, the Conservative lead is in mid-single figures, which if reproduced at the election would be low enough to make these sort of decisions critical in determining both who became PM and the outcome of many other betting markets. Even if most other pollsters are right and the current lead is in high single figures, that could still decline by polling day so the scenario’s very much in play.

David Herdson

What’ll be the consequences in the marginals?

Did I miss the glaringly obvious when I wrote that I did not know what had caused the 3% boost for the Lib Dems in the overnight YouGov daily poll for the Sun?

For the reason was plain to see as Mike L commented on the previous thread: “Last night’s news was dominated by the announcement of the Leader Debates - Clegg was side by side on split screen with Brown and Cameron and clips of all 3 were shown at the top of every news programme.

This could explain the LD rise in this evening’s YouGov poll. If so it may be an indicator of what will happen following the actual debates.”

That surely is right for the big challenge the Lib Dems always face is in securing media coverage. The debates give them a peg which will continue throughout the campaign. The big question is how this will impact on outcomes in the marginals?

For even without the “debate dividend” Clegg is already enjoying higher approval ratings now than Charles Kennedy got before the last election. Check out the Ipsos-MORI archive for the run-up to the 2005 election and here for the latest data.

I envisage this having two consequences: it’s going to be hard for the Tories to secure all the victories against Lib Dem incumbents that the crude uniform national swing calculations suggest they should get.

Secondly it might lead to higher Lib Dem shares in crucial LAB>CON marginals reducing anti-Tory tactical voting which could make Labour’s task that bit more challenging.

Already the prime focus of Labour’s ground campaigns in these crucial battle-grounds is to put the squeeze on known Lib Dem supporters (including me!) on their database to “unite behind Labour incumbents to stop the Tories”. Will they be less responsive if there’s a higher profile Nick Clegg?

That’s a big question and on it the election might be decided.

Mike Smithson

Morus wonders what would happen if…

Imagine that the polls narrow just a little more over the course of a blood-spattered, mud-flinging General Election campaign of only 17 working days that leaves no time for clarity and perspective.

Imagine that quirks of turnout and minor party support combine with a decent Lib Dem showing to befuddle the best laid plans of Mice and Men.

Imagine that the Conservatives, in spite of winning the largest percentage of the vote, are not the largest party in a Hung Parliament - or even that Labour win a toothskin-narrow majority in the Commons.

Just stop and imagine that. What happens to each of the three parties under that circumstance?

Perhaps the Conservatives will suddenly appear a different beast - tolerance for the sandal-wearing, hoodie-and-tree-hugging Cameroon project, and the dulcet tones of Guru Hilton, will surely be cast to the wayside. A new breed of Economically and Socially Liberal (cum Libertarian) MPs and activists thank the leader for his service, but consign him to the same circle of Purgatory as William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith, and Michael Howard once occupied: Conservative leaders who never became PM.

The howl of anger from the activist base - once more betrayed by a leadership unable to smite even the most rotten of Governments, once more the arrogance of leadership failing to connect with the country that they suspect wishes them back, once more the putrid sight of their most zealous opponents greased with schadenfreude at their sombre trudge back to the trenches of Opposition.

And from that anger, a new radical wave sweeps the Tory benches - tax-cutters, Eurosceptics, as likely to believe in gay marriage as inheritance tax abolition: a hybrid borne of Cameronian social liberalism and the more virile wing of the Taxpayers’ Alliance. Cameron, maybe Osborne too, relegated to the position of Party Elders before their time: a more strident, anti-Green, flat-taxing breed of Young Conservative is offered the knife to wield at a Labour Government in its Fourth and most bedraggled term.

And Labour? Perhaps with the majority of its Old Guard having fled the assumed slaughter, it assembles those too young and too bright to endure the baptism of fire that will greet them. The strategic and governmental inertia, combines with a growing sense of foreboding of an horrific financial future bequeathed to others, and inherited inadvertently.

This ‘new’ Government arrives stillborn at the Dispatch Box, led by a Prime Minister lacking both true allies, or veteran enemies capable of unseating him or constraining his behaviour, yet dragging a party into the abyss of his making with knowledge that this is their 1992 - that cruelest victory, the hack of the Executioner’s axe that did not quite end the life, but ensures complete annihilation when next he swings.

And the Lib Dems - perhaps they, having never been invited to be Kingmakers, are unable and unwilling to prop up the weakest of governments, yet knowing that the next election will likely see a shift of 1997 proportions, consigning them yet again to the wilderness of third party opposition with no hopes of coalition or influence.

And how long does this last? That’s the betting market I want to see…

Thanks to Tom Harris for the inspiration for this article. The Spectator article mentioned by Harris is also worth reading.

Morus

(who, for the record, still expects a Tory majority of 40 plus/minus 15 seats)

(DC adds:) If you haven’t already secured your copy of the Total Politics 2010 Election Guide, edited by Morus, it is definitely worth getting and is available here.