Ed Miliband demonstrates exactly why Labour are so frustrating...

It seems that young Mr Miliband has got it into his head that what we need is legislation to ensure that debates between party leaders take place. In doing so, he reminds me of the Labour belief that you can legislate for anything and everything.

Having chaired, or managed, far too many hustings in the past, I have to admit that they're usually pretty dull. Or, if they aren't dull, they consist of a series of soundbites designed to wind up the opponent. It was one of the reasons why, when the Party's Selection Rules were last reviewed, I sought to remove the obligation to have a classic hustings as part of the process, instead introducing a rule where by a members' meeting was held and that it offered an equality of opportunity to every applicant making it through to the all-member ballot.

What that meant was that candidates might, for example, make a presentation or tap dance or whatever, so long as every candidate was given the freedom to make their case in a way that suited them and showed them to best advantage.

So, whether we want them or not, and I suspect that many people really don't care, we will have televised debates, including any party which has more than 5% of the vote (how does that impact on the Nationalists?) but which reinforce the dominance of the big two by ensuring that they have a debate to themselves.

It would be far more entertaining if, by deciding to opt out of any debate, the broadcasters left an empty chair. Giving an uncontested opportunity to your opponents so that they might attack your policies or your record wouldn't look good, especially as it would give them even more time to do so. And yes, the broadcasters would have no obligation to offer a right to reply, because one has already been turned down.

I would rather see a range of formats on offer, on different media, to reflect the changing way in which we now seek information. That might mean via Facebook or Twitter, using You Tube or radio. I would also like to see policies presented, rather than soundbites delivered, what a Liberal Democrat, Labour, Conservative or Green government might look like, what their ambitions for our country are.

We have one of the most complex tax codes in the world, thanks mostly to thirteen years of Labour government. Now, it seems, we may have the most complex electoral rules too, and all to such little effect...

Labour's decision to get off the electoral reform fence welcomed

Welcoming the news that MPs will be asked to debate an amendment to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill to enable a referendum to be held on changing the electoral system to the Alternative Vote, director of Unlock Democracy Peter Facey said; 

We welcome the fact that the government has, at last, come off the fence on this issue.  A manifesto commitment to a referendum on electoral reform without legislation to back it up would have been an empty gesture, especially given Labour's track record in reneging on such pledges in the past.  We regret however that the system on offer has been handpicked by ministers rather than as a result of a deliberative process involving the public and we are concerned that they have not left themselves with enough time to ensure this Bill receives Royal Assent before Parliament is dissolved.

Unlock Democracy will continue to make the case for a proportional electoral system. The Alternative Vote system is not a proportional system, although it does offer greater choice for the voter and will require all MPs to acquire the support of at least half of their constituents. It is a step in the right direction but what we need is a system that reflects the votes cast across the country. We now live in a multi-party democracy, as chosen by the voters over successive elections, but our system does not reflect that. "

The Conservatives are now the only party committed to maintaining the existing, broken, first past the post voting system. Their continued failure to embrace the need for electoral reform damages the credibility of their claims to be a party of 'change'. After years of scandal and voter alienation, we simply can’t go on like this."

Alan Johnson's idea of reform - giving people a new system whilst leaving Party control intact

Amidst the sea of people applauding Alan Johnson for proposing a revisit of the recommendations of the Jenkins Commission, I feel the need for a raft for those who wish to blow a raspberry.

'Alternative Vote plus' does little to put power in the hands of the public. Yes, an MP will need to gain the support of 50% of those voting, and yes, there will be greater proportionality. But that just ensures that the spoils are more evenly divided, it doesn't give the public a genuine say about the identity of the individual who represents them. A small, fairly unrepresentative clique of Party activists will still choose the candidates and, in all likelihood, the top-up lists will be as they are in European, Scottish Parliamentary, Welsh and London Assembly elections, on a closed basis.

Not good enough, not good enough at all. But don't get me wrong, I'm not calling for an open primary system for selecting our candidates. The last thing I want to see is a candidate adopted by a bunch of people who have no sense of commitment to getting him/her elected, and who may not have the best interests of liberal democracy at heart. Besides, who pays for the process, and how does an aspirant candidate campaign for support? No, if I'm going to dedicate myself to getting him/her elected, I want to restrict the franchise to those making a commitment to my Party, and who share its beliefs.

If we really want to break the patronage of political parties whilst retaining their philosophical core, let's have STV, on multi-member constituencies, with open lists. We, the Party, decide which five, or seven, or whatever Liberal Democrats we think are best equipped to serve the constituency, and you, the public, decide which ones you prefer most. Candidates can campaign in their own name, competing against each other for your vote. You can vote for a particular type of candidate if you wish, and diversity is likely to improve. Even incumbents will have to work harder, if they want to retain their seats.

I don't think that Alan Johnson is being particularly cynical - after all, he has believed in electoral reform for some time. What I do think is that he fails to be radical enough. Political parties have become part of the problem - by giving up part of their control, they could yet be part of the solution.