AV-ing a laugh?

Labour's expensive and woeful push for regional assemblies in 2004 was at least done when times were good. The worst problems of the war in Iraq had yet to be exposed, and the UK seemed to be on a sound economic footing. Labour was comfortably in control of the country and seemed it would be for a long time.

In 2011, the picture couldn't be more different. The Tories and Lib Dems in their coalition are yet to be entirely comfortable with each other, and there are many, many fires to fight: Rising unemployment, a stuttering economy, public sector cuts and the standoff with local government. Then there are the optional policy changes the coalition is pushing ahead with: Free schools, NHS reforms and yes, the doomed Big Society.

Most right-minded project planners would tell the coalition to focus on solving the economic problems before embarking the pet projects ministers call 'reform.' Lobbing in a distracting debate and referendum on how the country votes feels like lunacy.

And it's when you look at why this vote is being foisted on us now that you see another parallel between the regional assemblies debacle and the AV debate. Just as Tony Blair needed to keep John Prescott onside to keep the old guard happy in the New Labour years - hence the regional assembly debate - so too Cameron needs Clegg to feel he's getting something out of the coalition.

Heck, Clegg's lost a lot in this coaliton. He may believe he's doing the right thing, and time will tell if the public returns to his side on that, but now his party is polling badly and his credibility amongst voters is in question.

So making the vote on AV a pre-condition of any coalition deal ensured a Lib Dem pet project became an essential part of government activity.

But that doesn't stop the whole debate feeling like a little bit of luxury we can't afford at the moment. I'm sure numbers can be produced to show it is being done on the cheap, but it's a distraction, and an unhelpful one at that.

Cameron and Clegg constantly talk about having to take tough decisions for the good of the country. They play up the difficult economic circumstances we're in. Yet they still find the time to create a debate over how we vote in the future.

A vote which, quite frankly, the vast majority of people don't care about - and turnout will probably bear this out.

For what it's worth, Cameron's early arguments against AV seem compelling. It won't actually open the door to the smaller parties as much a Clegg promises and could, in some cases, make safe seats even safer - around one third of all seats in the last election were won with a majority of more than 50% anyway, so AV would be irrelevant there.

These two lines from Cameron's speech stood out to me:

It can mean someone who's not really wanted by anyone winning an election because they were the least unliked.

It could mean that those who are courageous and brave and may not believe in or say things that everyone agrees with are pushed out of politics...

I can't but think Cameron is currently PM because he was the least unliked of the three main leaders, and let's be honest, party spin machines have all but consigned politicians who are 'courageous and brave' to the sinbin - or at best, the backbenches.

In other words, we face four months of debate about something which will fascinate the Westminster set, but probably leave the electoral system with the same sort of holes as before.

And the public still won't be any more likely to vote as a result.