There’s talk in the opinion pages about the possibilities of coalitions between parties in Parliament, some of which are quite disturbing. A key example is Benedict Brogan’s in the Telegraph here. The quote I’d really like to draw your attention to, and which I think does not work in the context of a coalitions is this:

What we should all focus on is the message emerging from Brown Central, that a deal between the two big losers – Labour and Lib Dems – is possible, and could even include a new Labour leader to make it ‘acceptable’. The idea that we would be governed by a coalition of losers led by someone who was not among the three leaders who paraded themselves on telly should have us reaching for our pitchforks.

Here’s the point –  a coalition government is where parties who are broadly aligned work together. A coalition of two smaller parties working together has an absolutely legitimate mandate when the coalition is larger than a largest single party.

In this case, if the Liberal Democrats are the party who can bridge the gap to a majority, then the seat count becomes less important when it comes to determining weight within a coalition. Look at the shares of the popular vote which each party received (from the BBC here):

• Conservatives – 10,681,417 – 36.1%
• Labour – 8,601,441 – 29.1%
• Liberal Democrats – 6,805,665 – 23%

These are the numbers of people who backed each party, rather than the number of seats they won. A ConLib coalition would have 17,487,082 voters backing them, 59.1% of the turnout, dwarfing Labour. A LabLib coalition would have 15,407,106 voters backing them, 52.1% of the turnout, and that would dwarf the Conservatives.

If the Tories cannot work in a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, but Labour can, then the Tories do not have the mandate to govern.