The coalition between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives should not be viewed with such disdain by those of a progressive frame of mind.

This was an inevitable situation once the results became clear. Had the Lib Dems and Labour scored as few as ten or so seats more than they did, at the Tories' cost, this could all have turned out very differently.

Once the results were out, anyone in the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrats eager to see the grand alliance made real will have realised that that was never going to work.

In seeking their aim of a referendum on electoral reform, the Liberal Democrats knew immediately that this would have been unachiavable in a coalition with the Labour Party and assorted other minor parties. Only a small rebellion would have seen the referendum proposal fail to obtain necessary legislative assent. This would have been a sure thing in the fractured and poorly disciplined Labour Party, reeling from loss of seats in the general election, and split by the forming of a coalition, the possibility of electoral reform preventing them future majorities, and the process of appointing a new leader.

No, the progressive grand-alliance was impossible from the off. It wouldn't have even been effective enough to deal with the severe economic cuts on the horizon, let alone the radical political reform the Liberal Democrats rightly wish to pursue.

So they had two choices. Either sit it alone and allow the Tories to form a minority government, or go into a full coalition.

The Liberal Democrats have been fighting for a fair system of voting for many years, and anyone with a modicum of political science understanding will admit that the systems they wish to implement - the Single Transferable Vote, or the "Alternative Vote +" (recommended by the Blair-initiated and then Blair-ignored 1998 Jenkins Commission), both being systems of Proportional Representation (PR) - are the next step towards genuine democracy, in an otherwise very undemocratic nation. People of all political pursuasions will argue over the efficacy of such a system of PR achieving their interpretation of 'good governance', but one cannot argue with the fact that PR is far closer to democracy than the system we have.

Proportional Representation virtually always leads to coalitions. This is the case worldwide, and it is an accepted part of the political system where it exists. The political culture in countries where PR is used is therefore very different from the Anglo-Saxon model of 'adversarial' politics seen in Britain, and both the House of Commons and the House of Lords are built to accomodate this style of politics; these type of institutions are called 'bicameral'. Elsewhere, politics is more 'consensual', involves more dialectic, and the institutions in which this type of politics operates are more suited to this, mainly being circular.

The Lib Dems of course are not so stupid as to fail to understand that PR virtually always leads to coalitions. During the election campaign, and particularly notably in the Leader's Debates, nobody will have failed to notice Clegg's constant reference to 'new politics', a 'new way of doing things', an end to the 'pass the parcel' politics between the 'two old parties'.

At the end of the campaign then, the Liberal Democrats had a huge political imperative to go into coalition with the Conservatives for a number of reasons.

Primarily, the Lib Dems had said all along that a hung parliament was not such a bad thing - 'don't be afraid' they said. They also condemned the constant passing of political power between the Labour Party and the Tories. Furthermore, they wished to give the impression of political credibility by acting not in party interest, but in national interest; which has rarely been more pressing in the light of the financial and social meltdown in Greece, and the clear risk of that spreading to the UK in the form of a double dip recession. The contagion fears in the days immediately prior to the 6th May election would have made this highly prominent in the Lib Dem negotiators' minds.

A coalition with a perilously small majority, between the Labour and Liberal Democrat Parties, would have undeniably caused financial concerns in the City, and would have done little to allay fears of a return to recession in the UK. This could indeed have lead to a run on the pound. One must remember that the economic policies of both parties were cautious and populist in their proposed handling of the economic downturn. Labour are also notoriously slavish to their paymasters within the Unions, who would have made unreasonable demands during a time when public sector pay and job cuts would be unavoidable. So the economic situation could have easily spiralled out of control had the Lib Dems and Labour attempted to forge an unlikely Rainbow Alliance with one another and the remaining hotch-potch of minor party's representatives.

But what then of the coalition with the Tories? Just today the Liberal Democrats' conference voted overwhelmingly to support the coalition, but that will have done little to allay the views of many observers or those within the Lib Dems themselves, who believe the coalition will destroy a significant amount of the Liberal Democrats voting base, i.e. that it will erode their 'core support'; the support that they fell back on at the elections which roughly maintained their representation in Parliament, with 57 seats (down from 63), following the last minute two-party squeeze. Without this to rely upon their future support could prove highly volatile, which would prove all the more galling should it happen under a system of 'Alternative Vote', which the Conservatives have agreed to hold a referendum on introducing.

There are already prominent voices of dissent in both the Liberal and Conservative ranks (see Lord Tebbit and Charles Kennedy), yet some significant causes for hope and gratefulness are being ignored, especially from those on the left.

Without this coalition, there were two possible alternatives, coalition with Labour or a minority Conservative government.

Coalition with Labour would have held risks as I have described, but yet further, should those risks have been realised, any referendum on PR would have failed as people would have viewed both the coalition a failure and undemocratic (a "coalition of the losers"), and this would have dissuaded many people from ever supporting PR. Moreover, it would have driven people into the welcoming arms of the Tories in an election that would have been unavoidably soon in the coming.

As I see it, Blair has engineered a position for Labour that Thatcher never quite managed to engineer for the Tories. Thatcher incrementally dismantled the traditional industries and unions which were the source of so many votes for Labour. Blair more easily shifted the entire Labour Party ethos to occupy a blurred middle ground which could appeal to voters of virtually any pursuasion under the right circumstances. In other words, Blair changed the Party to fit the people. Thatcher tried to change the people to fit the Party. Blair was more successful in this endeavour, and his success has cast the Tories as the sole party occupying an outdated mode of thought which barely fits 30% of the voting electorate. In the last election the Tories managed to get this plus a few more wavering voters more disgusted by Labour than impressed by the Tories. Even then, it was not enough to secure a majority, and one wonders whether it ever will again.

Had the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party formed a coalition, which would invariably have failed as the austerity measures became tougher and less popular, the following election would have delivered a hefty Tory majority. Such a majority, allowing the Tories unfettered ability to carry out executive functions, pass primary and secondary legislation willy-nilly, would have been a veritable disaster for the UK. They would have introduced far more regressive taxation measures and cuts than is currently being planned in the form of a VAT increase. They would have pandered entirely to the whim of Rupert Murdoch in return for favourable coverage by his media empire. They would have redrawn the political boundaries and disallowed the Scots and Welsh from voting to Parliament, all in the name of consolidating their position. In short, we would have suffered an enormous, encroaching lurch to the right, which would have made it very difficult for the Labour Party to ever achieve a majority again.

As it stands, the Liberal Democrats can shackle the Tories and prevent them from enacting their worst ideas. The Liberal Democrats have already managed to get the Tories to commit to a set of leftist policies which would never have come out of the Tory party alone. The abolition of taxes on the first £10k earned is foremost amongst these, but we will also see significant action taken to curb the greediness and power of the banks and the City, which has remained the basket with too many eggs for long enough. In addition, significant political reform will now take place - a referendum on AV will happen, which is far more likely to succeed in a nation where is has been proven that coalitions can and do work. The House of Lords will be primarily elected by Proportional Representation. People will be given the right to recall MPs, political donations will be limited, and lobbyists will be obliged by statute to sign a public register.

Another often overlooked issue for those on the left is that by the Liberal Democrats taking the Conservatives into power for a sustained period, the likelihood is that at the end of this period power will swing back decisively to the Labour Party, and with it, to the Left. This is as opposed to the suggestion I have already made that a coalition between Labour and the Lib Dems would have ultimately resulted in a majority for the Conservatives, which would also have been likely had the Conservatives been allowed to form only a minority government.

It would have rightly been seen as putting party interest above that of the country if the Liberal Democrats had refused at any cost to go into coalition with the Tories, as a minority government would struggle to deal with the economic situation, uncertainty would have made that worse, and an election would have been forced very soon thereafter. However, one should not ignore the fact that having sustained their electoral credibility by campaigning that hung parliaments could work, it would have been ridiculous to then spurn the offer of a coalition, and would have made a mockery of their eagerness to introduce an electoral system which always produces such outcomes.