HISTORY has lessons aplenty for those who choose to heed them.

For example, you learn that the Conservative Party has been one of the most successful phenomena in western politics, and you may conclude being “ruthless”, “calculating” and “tribal”, to quote Vince Cable, has probably helped to get it where it is today.

History also shows that on the few occasions the Conservatives have previously entered a coalition, all in the first half of the last century, the Tories have usually come out stronger and their partners grievously damaged, the big exception being Labour in 1945.

What seems slightly different this time is that the damage is being done so early in the relationship, with the Tories unscathed by the anti-coalition backlash while the Liberal Democrats lie bleeding.

That national backlash does not entirely explain the Lib Dem debacle in York. Ideally, I believe local elections should be fought on local issues, although this rarely happens. But even if the national tide had not been so heavily against the Lib Dems, it is highly unlikely they would have avoided defeat this time.

After ending many years of Labour dominance in 2003, the Libs Dems seemed to be quickly beset by controversy, and latterly by internal dissension; to be blunt, they appeared to be little more than limping along towards the end. Frankly, I was surprised they retained power in 2007, but in 2011 they were hit by a double blow of national and local disillusion, which surely explains the scale of their downfall.

Meanwhile, Labour can finally celebrate recapturing the Guildhall. And if their honeymoon period is brief, as this newspaper’s leader column suggested on Saturday, at least they have a double blame game to play to deflect criticism; the traditional one of blaming their predecessors for the “mess” they left, and the new one of blaming the nasty coalition Government for – well, everything, really.

However, if Labour were triumphant in York things were less rosy for them nationally, where the big winners (south of the border, anyway) were surely the aforementioned Conservatives.

Of course, things may get tougher when the cuts really start to bite, and there’s always the possibility the Lib Dems will decide quitting the coalition might be less suicidal for them than staying if they walk out over a sufficiently big and emotive issue, such as NHS reform.

Voting reform, and specifically the AV system, was never going to be the right issue for such a break-up. AV didn’t appeal to anyone much, even those such as myself who think the British political system is in a mess and needs revamping.

Mr Cameron and his cohorts again won the day, after arguing for tradition and that first past the post guarantees “strong” government – even though this time around it led to a coalition.

Anyway, to those who think “strong” governments with massive majorities are an unqualified boon, I would ask whether all those ideological U-turns suffered by our country down the years have really been such a good thing, wasting vast amounts of energy and resources turning back the policies of the previous administration, only for the process to be reversed next time around.

Contrast that with the situation in our near neighbour Belgium, which recently marked (celebrated?) a year without a “proper” government. Instead, they have a caretaker government, entrusted with keeping the ship of state as steady as possible, but prohibited from making major policy changes.

Has Belgium collapsed into anarchy as a result? Er, no, even though the lack of a government is due to the longstanding differences between that nation’s Flemish and French speakers. Belgium is not mired in the debt problems of some other euro-zone states, nor are there riots on the streets.

When our politicians get too full of themselves, they should be reminded about Belgium, and that sometimes countries can get along pretty well without them.