False bifurcation is a problem I have railed against before, in aid of the spectacular flop which was the ‘Rally Against Debt’. Whilst that particular cause has spluttered since then, the problem of people who do not recognise that there are more than two parties, more than two sides to every debate in this country, continues to boil away in politics and the media. Today, we saw the Deputy Leader of the SNP buying into this nonsense.

The argument that the Liberal Democrats ‘sold out’ by going into coalition with the Conservative Party, and then compromising to produce a workable legislative programme, lacks serious moral or intellectual fibre. First of all, we must remember the Parliamentary arithmetic worked against any other kind of coalition. The more parties in a coalition, as well - the more moving parts in the government machine - the harder it becomes to formulate policies and pass legislation. Whilst most all parties are coalitions of one kind or another; and thus, such bargaining is part of any government; adding more parties adds an extra level of complexity, in more negotiations between two leaderships. On top of this, commentators such as David Laws have suggested rather strongly that Labour just weren’t interested in a coalition. They seem to have recognised that whilst there was no victor, they were definitely the defeated party in that election; in any case, some felt that they needed a spell in opposition to refresh and rebuild. 

Second of all, we are wise to remember that the Liberal Democrats - and their predecessors in the Alliance and the Liberal Party - admitted often that a natural consequence of the electoral reform they pressed for was going to be coalition government. In many past elections - 1983, 1992 and 1997 - they have worked on coalition policies and ideas, and gotten into hot water for debating who they’d end up in a coalition with in the event of a hung Parliament. It is a lack of imagination and practical political concern which drives some to say that the only beneficiaries of this arrangement would be the Liberal Democrats - the suggestion is that they’d simply flop back and forth between Labour and the Conservative Party, depending on which was closer to a majority.

Of course, if the Labour and Conservative Parties wanted to avoid this, they could always go into grand coalition - a bold, daring move that would drive nutjob tribalists out of both and demonstrate once and for all they were in it to try and fix Britain, not beat each other down. Bipartisan politics fails voters, communities and countries - just look to the US to see the roaring success it has proven there. I’d even contend Liberal Democrats can more readily work with people across the spectrum because we’ve so long advocated ourselves as being out side the normal constraints - the classless party, for example - even though the facts may have been different. It is time for the two larger parties to get their heads out of the sand and recognise that we live in an age of plurality beyond two, or even three, party politics. 

Third of all - the implication that the party ‘sold out’ is often tied to the implication there is such a thing as an ‘anti-Tory’ or ‘progressive’ alliance/majority/bandwagon within Britain. There is not. There are not simply Conservative and anti-Conservative parties in politics. There are Liberals and socialists and nationalists and goodness knows what else in the mix and our political leaders and media commentators do the electorate a colossal disservice by peddling such lies. The Liberal Democrats’ natural ally is whichever party can best claim to carry forwards the principles to which we’ve long been allied - environmentalism, internationalism, localism - Liberalism as it has developed in this country. At the last election, Labour’s claim to being a party with respect for international law, human rights or local government was shot to pieces. There was little natural ideological room for coalition with the Liberal Democrats - even if Labour had wanted it, or we’d wanted to be tied to a defeated government, forever the people who “propped up NuLab” as I am sure Have Your Say would have it.

The reason the Liberal Party never died in this country - and won’t die, within my lifetime or anyone else reading this blog - is because there is a strong current of support for a party that supports the kind of things we support. As Tim Montgomerie points out in the Telegraph today - through gritted words of praise- the party leadership is getting better and better at putting those things into practice, and stopping other things we don’t like. Yes, sometimes we have to sign up to things we’re not comfortable with - but we’re adults, we can compromise and work together with someone to fix problems. This is how politics should be - consensual, debate-driven and clever. On the other side of the Commons, we see how politics has been for too long and why people loose faith - politicians firing broadsides into each other over an economic and political catastrophe of a government that they will accept no blame for, at least, not in a meaningful way.

I don’t think Labour, or the Conservatives, or any political party in this country, aren’t fundamentally capable of compromise and adult politics that goes beyond the false bifurcations that hark back to the 1950s. Oppositional, bipartisan politics has failed Britain for decades now. This is not about Liberal Democrats winning - this is about the SNP, Plaid and the Greens or other parties getting a louder voice in as well to help shape the debate and have their views heard. Britain deserves politics that works sanely - we just have to snap out of the mindset that only two sides exist in a debate, and that leaving one of these two is a betrayal that can never be forgiven.