Cameron hit home at PMQs when he asked why Brown wouldn't let his MPs have a free vote on the elements of the HFE Bill that were issues of conscience. The issue has been snowballing since then, culminating over the Easter weekend with Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor being the latest Church leader to speak out on the bill, and today with the broadsheet editorials united in backing a free vote.
But what exactly is a "vote of conscience"?
Is it code for letting religious folk conscientiously object? If so, who is to say which issues they are allowed to object on? When religion and politics intertwine into a worldview, putting some votes into a "religious box" is an arbitrary decision. Why not offer the same freedom for non-believers? And what votes aren't votes of conscience? Is this simply a way of avoiding neutralising
controversial ethical issues? It's all very grey.
There are two more coherent approaches. One is to not be afraid of making such issues party political. The leadership decides what it believes and requires others to follow that. In this case Brown would stick to his guns, a couple of his ministers would stick to theirs and nobly resign, and the Conservatives, perhaps, would decide what elements to oppose.
The other approach would be a far more popular one, and has been described by Dan Hannan:
"It is reasonable enough for governments to impose three-line whips on vital economic measures, or on manifesto commitments. But there are plenty of issues where MPs ought to be allowed to exercise their judgment independently: 24-hour opening, say, or super-casinos, or smoking bans, or party funding. If MPs were answerable downwards to their constituents rather than upwards to their Whips, their constituents might start to respect them."
