Here's what I don't understand.
Three parties put together well thought through policies on which they hope to build their government. Insufficient seats for a majority leads to two of those parties to negotiate what they once felt were non-negotiable, now together they look for areas of compromise for the national interest.
I am trying to get my head around what this says about what was expressed in their manifestos in the first place, which were surely written in the national interest - weren't they? Perhaps compromise is compromise is compromise. Perhaps national interest is a convenient deconstructable concept. Much can be learned from Jeremy Thorpe and his refusal to sell out - time will tell!