There is a piece in The Observer today by David Cameron entitled: "A Lib Dem-Tory alliance will vanquish Labour".
In it he argues that The Lib Dems and Labour have a lot in common and that we should not be "drawing dividing lines where they don't exist". Here is a quick snippet:
Politics works best when instead of hiding behind false divisions we seize opportunities to work together to get things done. That's what Nick Clegg and I did with the Gurkha issue. We had different answers as to how best to repay those who had given our country so much, but we agreed the status quo was unacceptable, so we recognised it was best to work together, defeat the government and make them think again.
That same spirit should exist between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats in other areas, too. That's because on so many progressive issues, there is strong agreement between our parties.
He then goes on to argue on various issues such as 42 days, ID cards, DNA database etc. the Tories and Lib Dems are in agreement in opposition to Labour.
His final paragraph is:
There's barely a cigarette paper between us in all these areas. It's clear: the real enemy of progressive politics is not the Conservatives and I would not claim it is the Liberal Democrats. In truth, it is the bureaucratic, backward-looking, big state government that Labour epitomises. That is why at our conference, instead of trying to create some artificial dividing lines between Liberal Democrat policy and Conservative policy, my message will be: if you want rid of Gordon Brown and the big brother state, and if you care about our schools, our quality of life and our liberties, then join us in one national movement that can bring real change.
So, Cameron is saying that there is little difference between the two parties and we should form a "national movement for change". If he really believes that then there is a simple way to facilitate this. He should argue for implementation of a proportional voting system for the House of Commons.
That way, if enough of his own party and the Lib-Dems agree with his hypothesis then the parties could work together in a meaningful partnership. He would have nothing to fear from electoral reform because he clearly thinks there is little between the Tories and Lib-Dems and hence would have no problems sharing power.
If he is not willing to put his money where his mouth is then I think it would only be fair to conclude that his article in today's Observer is not worth the paper it's printed on.