I don't have a crystal ball, but based on the recent council elections, I predict that if a General Election were to be held next week, the Liberal Democrats would lose the vast majority of their MPs.
I've heard people say that those who feel betrayed by the broken promises of Clegg & Co. had the wrong idea about what they stood for in the first place, but I reckon part of the reason the Lib Dems did so badly, while the Tories emerged with nary a scratch, is because you expect the tories to screw the nation.
So what did they stand for?
If they've been pretty much eliminated as a force in British politics, then we're back to essentially a two party state. One of which could be described as a Keynesian, Centre Right party, with a progressive attitude to social issues. The other of which could be described as a Monetarist, Centre Right party with a reactionary attitude to social issues.
The Lib Dems were in the "middle". Between the two.
All seems a bit pointless somehow. A Keynesian, Monetarist Centre Right party with a progressively reactionary attitude on social issues, or something? I mean, you've got Coke, and you've got Pepsi. Why bother making Virrgin Cola?
Anyway, they turned out to be another bunch of tossers. The only difference between now and twelve months ago is back then we could only guess, but now we know.
If the Lib Dems stood for anything they could have ended the coalition. Stood firm on tuition fees. Put their foot down with a firm hand and said "We choose principles over the simple fact that we've managed to get a hand on the reins of power."
But they didn't, so to hell with them. They're about as much use as a chocolate teapot.
Just a shame that so many squandered the chance of some kind of electoral reform, just to make a point.