Tom Richmond: Let's respect Nick Clegg, a politician who put the public interest first

Only Fabio Capello, the maligned manager of England's humiliated football team, has endured a faster descent from "hero" to "zero" in recent times than the suave leader of the Liberal Democrats.

Clegg's critics are numerous and extend across the political spectrum.

His own party are clearly uncomfortable bedfellows with the Tories as Cameron accelerates his cuts programme and seeks to balance the budget by raising VAT – a policy opposed by the Liberal Democrats during the General Election. Some accuse Clegg of selling out.

Conversely, many Conservatives believe that their junior coalition partners are exerting too much influence over policies such as the planned referendum on voting reform (even though the Lib Dems believe the proposed Alternative Vote system is no substitute for full proportional representation, the party's most cherished and recognisable policy). Clegg spells out his reforms to a Parliamentary committee today.

And, in the meantime, a discredited Labour Party, devoid of any tangible policies of its own, is gleeful that it can blame the Lib Dems, for implementing the Conservatives' cuts – like the planned VAT rise and the scrapping of so many school improvement schemes. It's a free

hit for Labour, while its interminable leadership contest drags on, and which has also helped promote the loathsome Peter Mandelson's memoirs.

It's little wonder that Clegg, the Sheffield Hallam MP, sometimes squirms with embarrassment when squeezed between Cameron and George Osborne, the Chancellor, on the Government benches in the Commons. Political enemies two months ago, they now appear to be the best of friends.

However, the criticism of Clegg is misplaced – despite his failure to stand up for Sheffield Forgemasters when the Government reneged upon the 80m loan, or the indiscretions of some of his Ministers over their expenses.

He is a rarity – an individual who risked all, including his party's future, to put the wider public interest before political advantage.

Let me explain. Given that the election left Cameron's Conservatives short of the overall majority that it expected, the Lib Dems would have been within their rights to say that they could not support the Tories because of fundamental policy disagreements on VAT and such like.

The alternative would have been Clegg sustaining a Labour government – with or without Gordon Brown at the helm – that had been rejected by voters. Is that what the country really wanted? Only Labour wanted such an arrangement, judging by Mandelson's memoirs.

The other scenario was for the Lib Dems choosing whether to support a minority Cameron administration on a vote by vote basis.

The latter was certainly attractive to some Lib Dems. It meant that they could have retained their default position as conscientious objectors of government policy without having to accept political responsibility for the unprecedented budget difficulties that Brown left behind. However, chaos would have reigned as MPs with special interests held the country to ransom in a series of knife-edge votes.

The difficult decision was acknowledging that Cameron, as leader of the biggest party, had a right to govern – and that the country required a formal coalition to provide stable leadership in these troubled times.

Of course, Clegg knew that some in his party would disagree with his decision. He, too, is acutely aware that the Lib Dems will suffer a backlash at next year's local elections that will do immense damage to his party's grassroots support base.

He also knew that the implementation of some key Lib Dem policies would mean the uncomfortable acceptance of unpopular Tory-led policies.

Yet, as politicians and voters queue up to attack the Government for the haste of its cuts agenda, Clegg should be applauded for providing the country with some firm leadership – and sparing the nation the prospect of a second general election that could also have ended with deadlock. He has also bought his party influence.

By paving the way for the Conservatives to take immediate action to cut the budget deficit, the Sheffield Hallam MP has also prevented Britain from losing its credit status – a move that would have seen the country become a global embarrassment and necessitate a bailout from the International Monetary Fund.

This would have been the chaotic, and destabilising, consequence if Labour had remained in power – or if the Conservatives' opponents used their combined strength to vote down last month's emergency Budget.

Of course, this will not appease Clegg's critics – and those who do not trust, or endorse, the coalition Government. However, they need to ask themselves this fundamental question: "What is the alternative?"

It's one that I have posed to many Yorkshire politicians and business leaders in recent weeks as they have expressed concern at various policies. In most instances, they have been unable to suggest a solution.

Inevitably, the relationship between Cameron and Clegg will be pivotal to the coalition's fate. I, for one, certainly think that the Lib Dems offer greater depth to a Government that would, by now, be floundering under a trade union onslaught if the Tories were in power alone, though not enough is being done to help areas, like Yorkshire, that are over-reliant on the public sector. Yes, the Lib Dems will be squeezed in the short-term. But, as Paddy Ashdown, one of Clegg's predecessors, said so eloquently at the weekend, the rewards could be limitless if the party survives the course.

For, despite the doubts of politicians, the public actually like the main parties having to work together consensually. They also know that the coalition is no more divided than Labour under the dual command of bitter rivals Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. And, as Lord Ashdown pointed out, what is the point of being in politics if you do not want to change your country for the better?

That is why Nick Clegg deserves the public's respect. He's brought his party back into the national limelight after seven decades in the wilderness and shown that co-operation and consensus are a viable alternative to the tribal politics that achieved so little

and alienated so many. As such, his leadership should be respected, not ridiculed.