Tony Blair has made another of his firm decisions - no more u-turns.

We definitely might have an election on June 7. Well, maybe. Let's wait and see.

What is more, he was convinced the month's delay was in the national interest. While he has no idea whether the foot-and-mouth epidemic will be under control by then, he was certain an even longer wait would be unacceptable. Unacceptable to whom? He was not clear.

The assumption is that when he refers to local elections, this is code for a general election. But the words "general election" have yet to pass his lips, whatever the speculation.

However, something infinitely more intriguing is emerging. Within new Labour's innermost circles, there is tentative discussion about introducing compulsory voting for elections in Britain. While it may not yet be new Labour policy, it is being broached in conversations by such senior party figures as the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, who is testing the water.

Compulsory voting was introduced in Australia in 1924. There is now a $50 fine if you do not vote. The result is an average turnout of around 97 per cent, an unheard of figure in Britain. Here turnout at the 1997 election was just over 70 per cent. In local elections it is much worse. While political cynicism and apathy is as prevalent in Australia as it is here, the important thing is the Aussies are there when the big day comes.

The argument against compulsory voting, that in a democratic society we should be free to make up our own minds whether we want to take part or not, is unacceptable. Freedom and democracy bring responsibilities with them. They need care and nurturing to ensure healthy growth. Voting in elections, making our individual voices heard however small they may be, was a hard won right. It is a privilege that must never be threatened.

In more cynical moments when I argue that not voting is in itself a way of making a political gesture, I remember my time as a southern African correspondent. I was in Namibia reporting on the first "free" elections in that country. I talked of the joy, the excitement and the pride those people experienced as they queued in the burning hot sun for half the day for the miraculous right to put a cross on a piece of paper. It was a humbling experience. I resent the self-satisfied liberals here who pontificate about their right not to vote.

How can freedom of choice somehow be compromised by a law which ensures we make that choice by casting a vote. Lord Irvine is responding to a new mood in our society - a mood which extols the virtues of rights rather than responsibilities.

While nothing will happen before the next election, the debate, when it opens up, will inevitably provoke huge passions. But I know of no revolt in Oz about their law. We should acknowledge their experience and embrace the same ideal.