AV is better than FPTP, even if it is not AMS or STV

Whether electoral opportunism or not, the planned introduction of a referendum on the Alternative Vote would be a significant improvement to the current First Past the Post system for electing MPs. By requiring that MPs gain the support of at least half of constituents, even if it isn’t all on the first ballot, AV would give MPs a greater sense of legitimacy at a time when they sorely need it. Already, the London Mayor is elected in this way, and there is some form of PR for elections in devolved elections and for Europe. Of course, it is not as proportional as other systems like the Additional Member System or the Single Transferable Vote (STV) which I happily learnt how to use most effectively in Ireland, but both would make it harder in a large country like Britain to retain the link with the local MP. It may feel like acronym soup, but it is about a stronger democracy.

So, the Liberal Democrats, as keen PR enthusiasts, should stop worrying about whether or not Gordon Brown has been having ‘death bed conversions’ and embrace AV as a major step forward for Westminster elections. Once voters get used to it, they will surely be open to more reform in the future. The only shame is that the referendum is not scheduled for polling day, when it could be sure of a big turnout and would not be open to abandonment by any government opposed to such an extension of democracy.

Progressive Conservatives?

George Osborne has chosen to eschew the hospitality of Nathan Rothschild this year - or more likely the other way around - in order to speak to us about the Conservatives as the new progressives. But they are progressives with a twist: as a result of their belief in reform, they will also save cash, he says.

Let's take these propositions at face value. On reform, the record is pretty patcy. It is true that Michael Gove has some interesting ideas on schools, though his structural school reforms largely build on Labour academies and legal requirements for more providers in schools. The big difference is the cost. An extra 220,000 surplus school places are promised, and are essential to deliver the promised changes, at a cost of £1 billion a year. Some £4.5 billion of capital would be raised from existing plans to replace or renew schools. So, no savings there.

But, as we have seen, education reform is not matched in health. Indeed the BMA spokesman and shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley is determined to push up waiting times, demand less from doctors and assume that patients will prosper merely because they (and the hackers of Russia) can access their patient records on Google. He has also declared that NHS spending will rise without this reform.

Equally, on political reform, the record is just as patchy. The Totnes primary was a good idea, and Labour should embrace primaries. I'm backing the Progress campaign there. But it is hardly cost-free. And more to the point, David Cameron has set himself resolutely against electoral reform, even though it would with the Alternative Vote or Additional Member System do more to ensure that voters had a direct say over who was their MP than the current system. Again, hardly a bastion of progress.

But, there is a reason they're still called the Conservatives, isn't there?

Would Cameron really let go in No 10?

Surely one of the funniest notions to emerge from the whole expenses crisis is the image of David Cameron as the man who wants to become Prime Minister only to hand what limited power he has in Number 10 over to backbenchers and local authorities.

Yet this is what we were expected to believe from his speech yesterday (although he was quick to reject the one thing that might demonstrate that he really would give up some power - proportional representation). Sure, I can see that he might want to cut the number of (Labour) MPs and pretend this is a selfless gesture. And he might even want to improve select committees (though they are a lot more powerful now than in the 1990s).

But are we really expected to believe that when Cameron finally works out what he wants to do as Prime Minister, he will let opposition backbenchers and his own councillors who oppose his plans for Swedish-style schools tear it all up to make a constitutional point. Helpfully, Anne McElvoy has dispelled any such notions in a great piece in tonight's London Evening Standard which explains just how much of a control freak Democratic Dave really is. Referring to his handling of recalcitrant MPs, she tells us how the sight of his former PPS Andrew McKay 'prattling' on TV was enough for Dave to hang him out to dry and asks:

What does all this tell us about his way of running things? For one thing, that he enjoys wielding authority and can wear it without strain. He still relies on a small group of insiders in times of trouble - the attack on "sofa government" in yesterday's speech might be deemed a bit rich coming from a man whose inner team practically inhabit his office sofa.

She goes on to point out that

A consistent faultline in Project Cameron is that it is both devolving and centralising at the same time, and often on the same issues. The present mood has tipped the balance - without an assessment of the impact of how it fits with other Conservative goals. That's evident when the shadow education spokesman waxes Govishly about devolving power one day - and then starts insisting on traditional subjects and uniform practices across the board the next.

It is said that Tony Blair talked constitutional reform in opposition but didn't deliver in Government. Ignoring devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, an overhaul of the House of Lords, PR in non-Westminster elections and Freedom of Information, this is what passes for informed comment among political pundits. Blair introduced huge constitutional reforms with lasting impact (as MPs shamed over expenses know). But what he also recognised was that sometimes being Prime Minister required leadership from the centre; without it, reform rarely happened and was often stymied.

The problem for Cameron is that he has been making his limited proposals sound more impressive than they are. And when it comes to delivering reforms - such as those on schools - which are disliked by a professional establishment that includes many of his own agents of localism (that's Tory councillors in old money) he'll find (should he win an election) that he'll want to use any real levers available to him as a Prime Minister to get his reforms through.

Of course, by then, yesterday's speech will be ancient history.

Johnson is right on PR

Alan Johnson's article in today's Times rightly makes the case for the sort of fundamental political reform casually dismissed with typical selflessness by David Cameron as an 'irrelevance'. The AV-plus system recommended by the Jenkins commission would give voters a much greater connection with their MPs - as they must amass 50 per cent of the constituency votes after transfers - and the chance to register a protest vote whilst also backing a potential governing party.

It is an elegant solution to the crisis facing our democracy and one which deserves the support of Gordon Brown. That Alan Johnson, whose tenure at health has been an unsung success, may see this as part of his post-election bid for the leadership makes it no less worthy. Labour has been playing second fiddle to Cameron's breathtakingly self-interested use of the expenses crisis for weeks now. This is the sort of measure that could both restore the party's reformist credentials - and put it back on the front foot in the political debate.