I'm typing this from an extraordinary time and place in the landscape of British political history: the aftermath of the UK General Election of May 2010.

You know what happened, of course. We went to the polls on Thursday, and no outright winner emerged. The Conservative Party made huge gains, won the largest share of the vote and parliamentary seats, but failed to reach an overall majority. The Labour Party lost 91 seats, and with them the majority they'd held since 1997. The Liberal Democrats did considerably less well than expected with only 23% of the popular vote, and ended up with less seats than they had before the election, only 57.

Five days later, we still don't know what shape the new government will take.

The Lib Dems made a promising start to their new role as third party in a hung parliament, assuring us that they'd negotiate in good faith with the party with the most votes and seats - putting the national interest and stable government first.

An agreement of some sort between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives seemed to be the only realistic option. The Lib Dems and Labour combined don't have enough seats for a parliamentary majority, and would be dependent on support from minor parties to do business in the Commons.

But after three days of talks with the Conservative Party that they'd described as constructive and positive, it transpired that they'd held duplicitous secret talks with Labour as well. Labour are now offering, as far as I can tell, immediate legislation to introduce a new voting system. Their leader, long considered an obstacle to co-operation with the Lib Dems, has promised to step down following an election contest. The Conservative Party's negotiating team has offered a referendum on electoral reform.

Yet Clegg told us he didn't want to be a kingmaker, that the people would make that choice. Have a closer look at the results, Nick.

It's become clear that, for the Lib Dems, these talks are not about negotiations to provide stable government in the national interest. No. What they wanted was a horse trading contest in their own selfish interest, to find out which of the other two parties will offer them the bigger concession on a voting system to give them more seats in the Commons.

To their credit, two senior Labour statesmen, both former home secretaries, have spoken out against Labour's unedifying efforts to cling onto power. John Reid warned that the electorate would be enraged if Labour "cocked a snook" at them. David Blunkett argued this morning that a "rainbow coalition of the defeated" could only take place on a very bad day for democracy, and the electorate would do the job of getting rid of Labour properly next time.

In my view, Clegg has decidedly overplayed his hand. He's turned an opportunity to demonstrate the advantages of proportional representation and its consequences into a rather vivid health warning against it. He had an opportunity to enhance his reputation as a responsible statesman, and in my opinion he's made himself look like a prostitute instead. This has become a farce.

And this is more or less exactly why I dislike PR. The hung parliament which is its inevitable consequence exaggerates the power of the third party, very disproportionately. The Lib Dem tail, with 23% of the votes, is vigorously wagging both the main party dogs. Arguably, it has just taken out the second party's leader. It has extracted from the Conservative Party a pledge that a new voting system will be put to a referendum; a measure that none of their voters have approved. And it's seeking to emphasise in government its own manifesto, rejected by three-quarters of the voters.

What's democratic about that? Has the party that's so very keen on proportional representation forgotten that the proportion of the voters it represents is less than one quarter?

If a sordid Lib-Lab coalition of the losers goes ahead, a squalid bigamous marriage of convenience between more or less all of the parties except the one that got the most votes, I believe that Labour and the Lib Dems will pay a heavy price at the next general election.

In terms of the national interest, it would be a nightmare. Unstable, unpredictable, undemocratic and vulnerable to blackmail from the nationalist parties, keen to dip their fingers into the English taxpayers' wallets.

But quite honestly, the Conservative supporter in me is thrilled at the prospect. They would face withering, righteous opposition from an reinvigorated Tory Party with a huge presence in parliament and an unshakeable foothold on the moral high ground. I believe that the voters would crucify them as soon as they get a chance.

It is a Tory landslide waiting to happen, long before 2015.

Do it, Nick. Please. Climb into bed with Miliband, Mandelson, Campbell and friends. It will be the last time you'll ever have any influence after a general election, and the last we'll see of Labour in power for a generation. In the end, you'll have done something in the national interest after all.