Of course there will be nuances in the above but a) is easier to achieve than b). That makes it all the more important to get private disquiet at the top of the Lib-Dems translated to public dissent. On the current track record it will be more difficult to forge relationships with Alexander, Clegg and Laws than Cable or Huhne. Equally council leaders like Paul Scriven at Sheffield is doomed on his current record to sit outside the tent while the 91 letter signatories may be difficult but not impossible.

The great unknown is where the future leaders like Tim Farron want to be ?

The extent to which the senior Lib Dems have taken to criticising Labour is extraordinary given who they might have to work with in a few years.

It’s not just Labour that needs to approach the Lib Dems differently, the Lib Dems need to wind their necks in a hell of a long way before they could position themselves as future governmental partners for Labour.

The most important single factor back then was simply that the parliamentary arithmetic meant any deal between Labour, the Lib-Dems and assorted others, would have been a complete nightmare. I doubt if it would have held together to Christmas.

It’s also quite clear that Clegg and the Orange Book clique at the top of the Lib-Dems were always going to be pre-disposed towards working with the Tories. However, had the numbers been different, and a straight Labour – Lib-Dem tie-up been capable of producing a working majority, I think Clegg et al would have had much more difficulty selling a deal with the Tories to their party.

If there is to be future coalition negotiations I think that it is epsecially important that it is not based on freindhsip, shared values but instead cold hard bargaining… wanting a coalition to survive for surivival sake makes parties and leaders appear power hungry.

In short, there is much that can be learned from the SNP’s minority government in Holyrood.