British prime minister David Cameron said today that disagreements with his Liberal Democrat allies on electoral reform would not bring down the coalition government he formed last year.
Mr Cameron, a Conservative, and his Liberal Democrat deputy Nick Clegg cast aside their carefully cultivated image of chummy rapport and, in speeches at different locations, lined up on opposite sides in a battle on changing Britain's voting system.
The Conservatives offered the Lib Dems a referendum on the "Alternative Vote" system to help persuade the smaller party to join them in a coalition government after last May's inconclusive election.
Mr Cameron remains opposed to AV, which falls short of the Lib Dems' ultimate goal of a full proportional voting system that would be more favourable to smaller parties, and wants to keep the existing first-past-the-post system.
"On this one, I don't agree with Nick," Mr Cameron said in a speech in London.
"But this is not a source of tension. And it's not a coalition breaker either," he added, saying the two parties would continue to work together after the May 5th referendum on the voting system.
Analysts agree the vote is unlikely to bring down the coalition as neither party would want to precipitate an election at a time of deep public spending cuts.
Before last year's election Mr Clegg dismissively referred to the AV system as "a miserable little compromise", a remark that Mr Cameron cited in his speech today. Mr Cameron also argued that AV was overly complex and would raise the cost of holding elections.
The current voting system usually gives a clear majority to either the Conservatives or Labour, and Mr Cameron argued that AV would increase the risk of more inconclusive elections -- like the one that ushered in his coalition.
Mr Clegg, speaking earlier in northern England, said that AV, which allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference, would better represent the voting wishes of the public than the current system.
He said the present system allows some lawmakers to keep their job for many years, increasing the temptation to abuse their power, for example by claiming false expenses.
"When a person is corrupt, they should be punished. When a system makes corruption more likely, it should be changed. So no, first-past-the-post is not working," he said.
"It is out of date and is at the heart of so many of the reasons that people don't engage in or care about politics."
Reuters