Why bother with the fortunes of a third party?  The democracies of Western Europe and America have never been kind to the perennial losers of the political world, denied the chance of  the big breakthrough by the winner-takes-all electoral systems. So who was really paying attention when Menzies Campbell, the 66-year-old boss of Britain’s Liberal Democrats chose to stand down yesterday after abysmal poll results suggested backing for his party had edged dangerously close to single digits? Well, start with Prime Minister Gordon Brown. 

That sagging performance in the polls has little to do with Liberal Democrat policies, which after all have the merit of consistency and principle. (Remember this was the one British party that always opposed the Iraq War). Rather it confirms a drift back to a resurgent Conservative Party led by a youthful David Cameron that matches a gathering disenchantment with the new premier. Suddenly, the thoughtful Liberal Democrat voter has somewhere else to go.

Again, the explanation has little to do with policy or performance. After three months in office, Brown has at least reinforced his reputation for solid competence as well as showing a certain sensitivity to the public mood. Some of predecessor Tony Blair’s less popular policies have been abruptly reversed. What’s upset the voters is the impression of indecision, in particular the disastrous dithering over whether to call a snap election next month. The notion of Brown as the rock-steady leader, central to his popularity, is exploded. Result: a steepening rise in the Tories’ ratings, now up to around 43 per cent according to one survey at the weekend -  seven points ahead of  Labor. If the Conservatives can only be sure of those Liberal Democrat waverers, then Downing Street will in sight. Political strategists know very well that third parties can decide elections even if it’s only through their failure.