1. Before the election the LibDems prepared

“for various contingencies using the principles of game theory developed by the Nobel prize-winning mathematician John Nash and regularly employed by the CIA.

This technique, where “mind trees” outlining various scenarios are drawn on whiteboards, was used by Vince Cable for many years when he was chief economist at Shell. Together with Chris Huhne, then a City analyst, they mapped out possible scenarios concerning political stability in Nigeria and the future of Norway’s regulatory framework.”

While their policies are closer to Labour:

“the top of the party is also united in its belief that they must remain “equidistant” from both Labour and the Tories in order to maximise their negotiating hand in the event of a hung Parliament.

They recognise, for instance, that it would be “suicide” for the party if it kept Gordon Brown in Number 10 in the event that the Conservatives emerge as the largest party.”

Since this article was published in the Guardian well before the election, Labour could have “war-gamed” their response.  I guess they did not as suggested by –

2. Andrew Adonis of the Labour negotiating team who complains that the LibDems overtures were

“an attempt by the Lib Dem leadership to conduct a dutch auction, inviting Labour to outbid the Tories on a shopping list of demands.”

These stories and the an analysis of what the electoral reform under consideration would have meant for the last election can be found in an excellent NYT blog post.