David cameron

Is AV too complex? Ask John Humphrys, who unwittingly made the case against switching system today, in conversation with David Cameron on the Today programme. It became clear that Humphrys believed that everyone's second preference vote would be counted under AV — and Cameron pounced. Here's the transcript: DC: If you go to an AV system you start counting some people's votes more than once. And you end up, in the words of Churchill... JH: No you don't. It simply isn't true that you count votes more than once. DC: Yes, you count all the votes. You start eliminating candidates, and you count people's second preferences. JH: And I have a second preference, as well as you, as well as anyone else. So you don't count some people's votes more than others.

David Cameron became most animated on the Andrew Marr show this morning when the subject of Libya came up. It was clear that he remains passionately convinced that the course he has taken is the right thing to have done. The Prime Minister refused to comment on the Gaddafi regime’s claim that one of Gaddafi’s children had been killed in a Nato airstrike and wouldn’t be drawn on the question of whether the government considers the Gaddafi family legitimate targets. But given that, as Cameron himself noted, the Gaddafi family is running the military operation and ordering moves against civilians then they surely are legitimate targets.

The Royal wedding and gossip about super injunctions is rather dominating conversation at Westminster today. But there is still some politics going on. Patrick Wintour in The Guardian has the beginnings of the recriminations that will follow a No vote in the referendum. Relations between the Lib Dems and the Yes campaign are pretty bad at the moment. Clegg’s camp is happy to tell journalists about what they see as the myriad failings of the Yes campaign. They complain that the Yes campaign has been too slow on the draw, let the No side define the debate and failed to get any message across. The Yes campaign’s response to this has been to whisper in peoples’ ears that whenever Nick Clegg appears for Yes their numbers go down.

Aside from the "Calm down, dear" drama, there was something else worth noting from today's PMQs: David Cameron trying for a calmer debate on the deficit. He admitted that his government is not really being that much more aggressive than Gordon Brown would have been. They're cutting £8 for every £7 that Brown and Darling proposed for 2011-12, he said. It's a line that Nick Clegg road-tested in his speech to the IPPR last week, and it represents a new and welcome strategy. To date, the rhetorical differences have been stark. The Tories have said: we’re the big bold cutters, Labour are deficit deniers. Labour has replied: your cuts are too deep and too harsh, and the GDP figures prove it.

Something has undoubtedly changed in the coalition in the past fortnight. Even those at the centre, who have been most loyal to the concept of coalition, are now happy to complain about the other side and its behaviour. But I’m still sceptical of all the early election speculation which has been sparked by Jackie Ashley’s very clever Guardian column. The main reason why I don’t think it will happen is the Cameron brand. Ever since David Cameron became leader of the Conservative party, the top of the party has believed that the protection of the Cameron brand is essential to electoral success. Cameron has too much personally invested in showing that the coalition can work to let it fail. The coalition is now key to Cameron’s whole political persona.

You know a political campaign has gone terribly wrong when a Cabinet Minister threatens defamation proceedings against the Prime Minister. And that is precisely what happened this weekend, when Energy Secretary Chris Huhne began snarling in the Sunday papers. Stating that the Tory claim that the AV electoral system would cost more was “demonstrably untrue,” Huhne said: “It is frankly worrying if you have colleagues, who you have respected and who you have worked well with, who are making claims which have no foundation in truth whatsoever. If they don't come clean on this I am sure the law courts will.

The AV referendum: it’s enough to make you long for the life to come. As James notes, this Easter Sunday has been shaken by the Lib Dems' righteous fury over the conduct of the campaign. Many will think this anger synthetic, but its virulence is striking nonetheless. Gone, it seems, is the bonhomie of earlier days, when ministers were surprised by how amenable they found each other. Perhaps they will now put aside childish things and trust in their better judgement. The AV furore is beginning to relegate the local elections, which might concern the government because these elections are paramount to its reform of local government.

Judging from the front page of tomorrow’s Independent on Sunday, the coalition’s relationship troubles are escalating. The paper’s front page blares, “Clegg rages against Cameron ‘lies’”. Even accounting for the license headline writers takes, this shows just how fraught things are inside the coalition at the moment. The Liberal Democrats feel that the Tories have let the No campaign go too far in its’ attack on Clegg and so feel they are no longer bound to be respectful about their coalition partners. Vince Cable’s message in today’s Guardian sums up the sense of many Lib Dems that they’d rather be in coalition with Labour than the Tories.

I'm sorry to do this to you, CoffeeHousers, at the start of a bank holiday weekend — but I thought you might have a morbid sort of interest in Gordon Brown's latest role. Turns out that, as expected, our former PM is to join the World Economic Forum in an advisory capacity. He won't be paid for his work, although the Forum will cover his staffing costs. One of his spokespeople has told ITV's Alex Forrest that his task is to "stop the next financial crisis." Which is to say, he'll be saving the world. Again. If nothing else, it's yet another demonstration of Brown's peculiar resilience. Our former PM may be electoral anathema in these parts, but he clearly still holds some allure for the technocrats of Davos, Geneva and Bretton Woods.