Its been a long time since we've seen a newspaper column advocating the merits of AV-Plus. 

AV-Plus is the hybrid PR system devised by Roy Jenkins as part of his ill-fated review of the electoral system in 1998.  Electoral reform made several appearances in the papers last week - but none gave much attention to the system that Jenkins thought best suited to the UK.

Johann Hari sets the record straight in today's Independent ('We need proportional representation. But what's on offer will just make matters worse') Hari is a well-known advocate of electoral reform - and the fact that he writes in The Independent doesn't suggest that AV-Plus is finding new converts.  What's more, Hari says little that you wouldn't expect him to say.

Nevertheless it is cheering to read such an unashamed argument in favour of Jenkin's proposal. Its good to know that with Hari and The Independent on the scene there are still those who are prepared to remember AV-Plus with fondness.

Also in today's news

• Tim Hames suggests that one of the outcomes of PR in the upcoming GLA elections will be a victorious BNP ('Prepare for a shock BNP victory')
  

CentreForum today published 'Lib Con: can the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats co-operate'.

One of the authors, Mark Bell, has also written a summary for the Guardian's Comment is Free website ('Power of the Lib Dems'). You can read the whole report on the CentreForum website.

Peter Riddell also refers to the report in his article exploring the recent surge of interest around changing the voting system ('Preferential votes give Tories cause to consider poll reform')

Lib Con follows a previous CentreForum publication 'Lib Lab' published last autumn which is also available from the CentreForum site.

On Tuesday Michael Gove delivered a speech at a CentreForum meeting called "Making opportunity more equal: closing the achievement gap in our schools" The full text is available from the CentreForum website.

It picked up a fair amount of press interest  including the BBC ("Tories attack 'opportunity block'), The Mail ('Failing schools to be taken out of council control, Tories pledge') and The Telegraph ("Tories to end town hall grip on failing schools") which also made it the subject of one of its leaders ("Michael Gove's idea to free our failing schools")

Gove's analysis of the growing gap between the advantaged and disadvantaged echoes much of CentreForum's work.  What's more, he shows that schools amplify those differences throughout a pupil's school career. Gove's prescription is simple. Academies have worked for a simple reason.

"...who has presided over this failure – who should take responsibility for this record of under achievement and deepening inequality? The buck has to stop with the local authorities in whose areas failure has been concentrated."

Unfortunately, Gove gives few details of local authority failings and instead concentrates on what successful academies have done:

"[Academies are] Free to choose and shape their own curriculum. Free to hire and reward their own staff in their own way. Free to co-operate and collaborate with who they wanted, in the private and public sector, in the way they wanted. Free to exclude disruptive pupils and set their own discipline policies... And the bureaucracy from which they were liberated was – in Lewisham, or in Hackney, or in Manchester, - the Labour-run bureaucracy which had... tolerated, entrenched failure for years."

The Liberal Democrat front bench is grappling with the same issues. Nick Clegg's much plugged pupil premium is one way of addressing the same problem.  However, to pursue a similar line to Gove, Nick Clegg and his team will have to persuade their Lib Dem councillor colleagues many of whom run LEAs now.

Many of those councillors feel misunderstood in this debate.  They feel the notion that they are stifling innovation is misplaced when central government allows them few opportunities to experiment in ways they would like.

Those advancing the cause of school innovation need to show they understand these nuances in order to build a convincing critique of Local Education Authorities.

Also in the news:

The BBC publishes the first "First 100 days" article assessing Clegg's leadership.

Constitutional change has in the air this week.  Jack Straw's draft constitutional renewal bill has not propelled itself to the top of the news agenda - but plenty of commentators have picked up on the proposals.

Peter Riddell sets out the details in The Times ("Important changes under way, but who cares?") whilst making clear that he feels they are too timid to make any real waves.

Plenty of other people agree and say that a bold move to electoral reform should be central to the package: see Jonathan Freedland in The Guardian ("Brown and Straw's best bet is to go out like Butch and Sundance"); Steve Richards in The Independent ("Electoral reform could be just what Brown needs. But if he is to act, he must do it soon"); and the Kevin Maguire in The Mirror ("Let's play by Aussie rules")

These are the usual suspects for this kind of opinion.  Michael White offers a counter view stating:

"...changes [to the voting system] won't reverse voter disillusionment or make for better, wiser government. It's just a rule change, like the penalty shoot-out after 30 minutes of extra time. Actually it's not. It's the equivalent of abolishing the penalty shoot-out, which at least ensures a result." Michael White - "PR is the only electoral reform that would actually matter"

Though, as the headline suggests, he does agree that anything less than a change to the voting system is unlikely to impress anyone - especially the voters.

Finally, Alice Miles in The Times, does what columnists do well.  She proffers a radical solution that appears vaguely credible for some, but not all, or her column; and falls apart completely after finishing it. She isn't helped by her sub editor who has put her piece under the headline "Elect Ant and Dec to Parliament".

Since its launch CentreForum has had a particular interest in tackling inequality in childhood.  Our pamphlets have sought answers to the growing inequality in the UK and most often we have concluded that taking measures in early childhood is the most effective way to do this.  (see pamphlets including 'Tackling Educational Inequality', 'The surest route: early years education and life chances' and 'Climbing the ladder: how can Britain become more socially mobile?' )

Indeed, a leader in The Independent last year stated:

"The Prime Minister and his education ministers would do well to study this week's report from the liberal think tank CentreForum... Some of the measure recommended by CentreForum would make the kind of radiocal package Mr Brown needs to strengthen his credibility as the prime minister who sough to end child poverty."

We continue our interest in this topic, so it was the two comment pieces that addressed this issue that caught our eye today.

"Yes! Parenting classes for kids" by Alice Miles in The Times outlines some well-worn, but still valid reasons to prepare children for the stresses and strains of parenting from an early age.

"Proof that we fail too many children" by Deborah Orr in The Independent reminds us of the vicious circle that is our youth justice system.

If you share our interest in this area you might be interested in attending the talk Michael Gove MP on "Making opportunity more equal: the moral urgency of closing the achievement gap in our schools" next week - details from the CentreForum website.

Writing in yesterday's Independent, respected psephologist, John Curtice wrote:

"On its own one such poll could be dismissed as a "rogue". Statistical theory tells us that even a well-conducted poll will under- or overestimate a party's true standing by more than three points one time in 20. Just occasionally the error will be even bigger. Perhaps, it is YouGov's misfortune to have suffered such a fate." Labour slides in polls as Darling works his magic

He was writing about two opinion polls that appeared at the weekend that gave the Conservatives big leads. The Sunday Times published its YouGov poll which had the Conservatives on 43% (+3),  Labour 27% (-6), Lib Dem 16% (+/-0).  Meanwhile an ICM News of the World poll put the Tories on 40% (+3), Labour 31% (-3) and Lib Dems 20% (-1).

Today there is a new ICM poll in The Guardian. The raw figures put the Conservatives on 42%(+5), Labour on 29% (-5)and the Lib Dems on 21(+/-0) which give the Conservatives a 13 point lead and suggests that all the polls might well be accurate. Julian Glover, The Guardian's Chief Leader writer has penned a commentary:

"Today's poll suggests Alistair Darling's deliberately dull budget appears to have backfired. In late January, ICM found Labour retained a seven point lead as the best party on the economy. Now the Tories have an eight point lead. Asked which economic team they trust most, 40% of voters pick David Cameron and George Osborne and only 32% Brown and Darling." Economic fears drive Labour to 24-year low

If Labour are losing their economic brownie points now they will surely struggle in weeks and months to come if bad economic news starts effecting larger numbers of voters.

Also in today's papers:

Steve Richards gives his views on the evidence from recent polls - Labour needs to find a new narrative, and the Conservatives need to stick to the same story

David Aaronovitch dislikes the sneering at proposals for a national oath -  My oath to the land of No

With the race for the democratic nomination now entering a 6 week long hinterland until Pennsylvania votes on April 22nd, it's worth assessing the current state of the contest.

The bottom line is that Barack Obama remains in a commanding position. He has a large lead in pledged and total delegates (the gains made by Hillary Clinton from Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas are likely to be wiped out by Obama's gains in Wyoming and Mississippi since), has won more states, and has a substantial popular vote lead. Slate's delegate calculator shows Clinton is unlikely to be able to claw back Obama's delegate lead - even 20 point wins in all of the remaining states will not result in her going to the convention with more delegates. Obama's fundraising continues to be astronomical - he raised $55 million in February, compared to $35 million for Clinton. John McCain raised an anaemic $12 million.

Consequently, unless Clinton persuades the super-delegates to overturn the will of the Democratic electorate - possible but unlikely - Obama will be the Democratic nominee. But, until then, be prepared for more of this.

Whether the extended race is a bad thing for the Democratic party is a moot point. Certainly Clinton and Obama are increasingly damaging each other. But they are probably doing so less than John McCain and the Republican machine will once the nominee is known. Additionally, McCain's coverage is being squeezed out, the national political debate is primarily being conducted by the two democrats on terms favourable to democrats (with a focus on healthcare, the economy and Iraq), and the extended race is building up dynamic and well-funded democratic organisations in states which would otherwise have been ignored. Overall, the extended race may prove to be a net benefit to the democrats' chances in November.

In our roundup of yesterday's press coverage The Freethink blog predicted a "a modest increase in the [Lib Dem]'s poll ratings when they are next published".

Cut now to today's Times/Populous poll ("Pre Budget poll puts Labour within three points of Tories")

The scores on the doors are Labour 34 (+3), Conservative 37 (-3), Lib Dem 19 (+2), Other 10 (-2).  So FreeThink can be chuffed that its predictions have been met so soon.

The poll was completed before Clegg made his conference speech. Merely being in news was enough to lift the Liberal Democrat's poll ratings - no matter that it was splits and rebellions that put it there. That is not to say such bad news stories don't have an effect. The poll also records a fall in Clegg's personal approval rating:

"On a 0 to 10 scale, this has fallen since January from 4.4 to 4.16, the lowest leader measure for any Lib Dem leader since the question was first asked more than five years ago. The only lower leader ratings were for Iain Duncan Smith in spring 2003." The Times - March 11

Steve Richards gives his verdict on the Lib Dem fallout from Europe and the Liverpool conference in his regular piece today ("Clegg could be an engaging and effective leader.  But how much does that matter?")  After ruminating on Clegg's references to coalition deals, Richard's concludes:

Leaders of the Liberal Democrats come and go. The dilemma remains the same. On the basis of his performance this weekend Mr Clegg has the potential to be a distinctive, radical and engaging leader. The route to power for his party is as obscure as ever.

So the picture is mixed but, all things remaining equal, we should see other post-conference polls matching or even outstripping the +2 recorded by Populous. That said, the likelihood of all things remaining equal in budget week are rather slim.  Lib Dem hopes will therefore be transplanted to Vince Cable's ability to keep the party in the media spotlight for continued good poll ratings.

The FreeThink blog has been rather distracted by goings off in the American sphere as of late.  Nick Clegg's first conference speech as Lib Dem leader is therefore a welcome opportunity to return our gaze to the British political scene.

Most of the papers' news coverage centres on Clegg's references to coalition deals - see "No power-sharing deals unless constitution is reformed, warns Clegg" in The Independent, "Clegg's terms for deal in hung parliament" in The Guardian and "Lib Dem leader vows to end politics as usual" in The Times. 

The Telegraph concentrates on proposals to control naughty MPs ("Nick Clegg calls for disgraced MPs to be sacked"), whilst it is left to the FT  to pick out the interesting potential of tax cuts as part of the next Lib Dem manifesto ("Clegg dangles tax cuts in high risk strategy") Credit also should go to the BBC for picking up on this part of the speech.

The commentators are more interesting and differ in their interpretations.  Tim Hames, The Times' cheerleader-in-chief for Clegg during the leadership election, has some more critical words in "If only Nick were more of a McClegg" (don't let the headline put you off - the suggestion that he should emulate the tactics of John McCain are quite interesting)

Matthew Norman in The Independent ("Nick Clegg and the art of self destruction") and Quentin Letts in The Mail ("Like a five quid Rolex, Clegg's delivery was a blatant rip-off") are quite dismissive of both the speech and its delivery.

The Guardian Leader ("Clegg's comeback") is kinder.  Whilst it starts suggesting it wasn't that impressed by the presentation ("a thoughtful text, an old-fashioned lectern and a dispassionate tone may yet come to look refreshingly modern" it goes on to conclude that "Yesterday he showed that he has the resilience to hit back."

Last week's European rebellion wasn't pretty. But as long as the treaty's passage through the Lords is handled better, the coverage that he has had last week and this weekend might well lead to a modest increase in the party's poll ratings when they are next published.

Tomorrow's Democratic contests in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont are the most critical thus far. Most analysts expect that Obama wins would force Clinton out of the race. For Clinton, quite what a 'victory' would amount to is unclear and under debate, and both camps are happily playing down expectations with the intention of then exceeding them.

My own view is that Rhode Island and Vermont are sideshows, and that Clinton needs to win the popular vote in both Ohio and Texas in order to remain a credible factor in the race - an Obama victory in the popular vote in either state would make it hard to continue (I would expect a Clinton withdrawal on Wednesday should that happen). Current polls suggest this is possible, although the momentum is undoubtedly in Obama's favour: in both states he has eaten into if not overturned what a couple of weeks ago were double digit leads in both states. 

Complicating this situation is that the Texan method of apportioning delegates (a peculiar combination of caucuses and primaries, combined with heavily gerrymandered districts) favours Obama. A narrow popular vote victory for Clinton would probably give Obama a majority of the delegates. Given that Clinton's ultimate task is to overtake Obama in the number of delegates at the convention, a popular vote victory but delegate defeat could - in terms of securing the nomination - be as damaging as a popular vote defeat. Whether it would play that way in the media is another matter.

My prediction: Clinton wins in Ohio and (narrowly) Rhode Island, while Obama takes Texas and Vermont. Clinton then bows out magnanimously on Wednesday...

On a different note, I wrote an article for Comment is free about the potential impact of the presidential election on abortion rights in the US. It's available here.