Yes to fairer votes

Apparently Ed Milliband, who supports the reform of the electoral system , has suggested that it would be better if Nick Clegg kept out of the referendum campaign. He's probably right, but illustrates how unsuitable referendums are for making political decisions - people are likely to vote on something other than the question asked.

On Thursday I had my first session of training for the "Yes to Fairer Votes" campaign. This was again by telephone (for which I had to pay) and lasted an hour. The session was led by Alice, who asked each of us (there were about a dozen people on the line, plus a deep throated mystery voice which kept saying "X has joined the conference" or "Y has left the conference") to tell our "personal story" of why we wanted fairer votes.

Alice's story was that two years ago she had been incensed because a friend of hers was living in sub-standard housing whilst pregnant and the MP just didn't care. This didn't strike me as being particularly relevant to electoral reform for the Westminster parliament, since such problems should be dealt with by social workers and local councilors. I want MPs to be preoccupied with the great national and international issues, and holding the government to account in an informed manner, not earning brownie points by working as highly paid welfare officers for their constituencies.

The theme of the training was that, by telling our personal stories, we should convince people that AV would make MPs work harder and abolish jobs for life (ie safe seats). It is true that under AV there will be fewer safe seats but they will hardly be abolished. My own personal story, when asked, was that I believed that AV would enable people to vote more honestly, be fairer and produce a more representative parliament which would encourage parties to work together. Not quite so sexy as a pregnant friend in a rat infested house, but more honest, I believe.

The campaign is to be carried out by "phone banks". Knocking on doors and leaflets are old hat. My comment that I find "cold calling" by telephone intrusive and that it created in me a negative reaction was brushed aside. "Was not door knocking also intrusive?" Well, yes, but at least the canvassers had shown they were concerned enough to get off their backsides and pay a visit rather than pester from the comfort of their own homes (or a phone bank centre.) Phone banking has, apparently, been tried an tested, was used by both President Obama and Ed Milliband and is the new sliced bread.

In my view the great advantage of AV over First Past the Post is that it ends the need for negative voting (aka tactical voting - voting for a second choice in order to keep out a third choice.) With AV we shall be able to vote positively for our first choices and use our second choice for the "keeping out" option. This, rather than the dubious advantages of MPs scrabbling even harder as social workers, should be the spearhead of the campaign.

Four Rays of Liberal Sunshine

Four rays of Liberal sunshine have emanated from the coalition government in the past week: the decisions to share some defence capabilities with the French, to grant (some) prisoners the right to vote, to refer Murdoch's BSkyB bid to the media regulator, and the successful passage of the referendum on voting reform through its final stage in the Commons.

Of course, not all of these are cause for unalloyed Liberal Democrat joy. On defence many of us would like to see more determined steps towards disarmament, but the decision to share with the French is is a step in the direction of realism.The coalition can't take all the credit, as I believe the initial negotiations were started by the Brown government, but it is reasonable to suppose that, without Liberal Democrat support Cameron may not have had the strength to stand up to his chauvinist "Little Englanders" and carry the process through. Coupled with the earlier "decision to postpone a decision" on the like for like replacement of Trident until the next parliament, this is genuine Liberal Democrat progress.

Acceptance the ruling of the ECHR on prisoners' right to vote is another area where Cameron will have been grateful for Liberal Democrat backbone. Let us hope it leads to some improvement in the appalling conditions in our prisons and the purposeless incarceration of so many damaged a vulnerable people. Again, coupled with Ken Clarke's conversion to a more liberal policy, this is something for us to shout about, and shout about it we should. I hope that our Focus editors are not so scared of frightening the horses that they ignore it or, worse still, condemn it.

Thank goodness for Vince Cable's unhesitating action in referring the Murdoch bid to the regulator. We are told that the Tories are "much more relaxed" about the possibility of a further extension of the Murdoch empire, so Liberal Democrat steel has certainly been important here.

Finally, the "referendum on the voting system" bill may not be on the system most of us would have preferred, and it is unfortunately coupled with a reduction in the number of constituencies and a revision of their boundaries. This might reasonably be described as an attempt to rig the system against Labour and so give them an excuse for voting against the entire package. But it does give the lie to those who predicted that the coalition was not strong enough to get the bill through. Of course, it still has to pass the Lords.

In spite of all these reservations, these are four rays of kindly light to relieve the gloom encircling those of us who are dismayed and bewildered by Liberal Democrat support for economic policy which is the antithesis of common sense and all our traditions.

Not President Cameron

Notwithstanding the Cleggmania arising from the first debate I still believe that three leaders' debates, and nothing much from other major contenders for office placed too much emphasis on the personalities of the leaders and not enough on the policies of the members of their teams (see previous post.)

Although he has broken no new ground David Cameron has continued the presidential style in this first month that he has held the office of prime minister.

Each Wednesday he reads out the names of soldiers killed in service overseas and expresses the government's regret, a pratice begun by Mrs Thatches but which would be more appropriately done by the minister of defence. He has visited Cumbria after the devastating killings there. Surely member of the royal family could best express the nations condolences to the bereaved, and the home secretary, the person responsive for law and order, is the one who needs to know from the police and other authorities what lessons, if any can be learned. He has held talks and a press conference with President Karzai, although he has a foreign secretary in whom, presumably, he has confidence. He is about to talk to President Obama about BP when he has an excellent business secretary who could well do that if he felt it really necessary.

This is not new politics. Althugh it would be churlish to doubt Cameron's sincerity in respect to the bereaved in Cumbria and the relatives and friends of soldiers killed in action, it is hard to avoid the suspicion that these and the other instances mentioned have an element of public relations. Real new politics would be for the restoration of cabinet government and for the responsible ministers to take the lead, in public where necessary, in their departments, and not find themselves upstaged by the prime minister every time a public relations opportunity arises.