Over the last 20 years, many arenas of public life have felt the touch of market reforms. From energy to health, education, social services and air traffic control, successive governments have used markets in a belief that they will enhance efficiency and effectiveness.

But those same governments have time and again rejected the idea of a free market in democracy; a system that would allow unresponsive parties to die and promote the success of parties better able to represent voters. And again, just like in 1997, Labour is making noises to ensure the LibDems see us as their best bet for PR in the event of a hung parliament.

But electoral reform is a complicated issue with many, varied options available, and I cannot accept that the form of PR hashed out in a back room over three days negotiation, after a tense election, will be an electoral reform that will be of benefit to Britain. The only reform possible under those circumstances will; be one that benefits politicians, not the voters themselves.

Yet that is a real possibility, and those who oppose and support PR alike, need to engage in the debate now to ensure that there is clear support for a system that best benefits the people of this country rather than providing party hierarchies with the power of a list system dominated by sycophants and acolytes.

Furthermore, taking the lead on this issue rather than horse-trading with the LibDems in secret, will give the public a greater faith that these steps are being taken for noble, rather than cynical reasons.

I have a preferred system myself, which I believe would have the following benefits.

1. More voters' votes would contribute to elected politicians' majorities - and therefore, those politicians would be more accountable to their voters.
   
2. The constituency link would be protected.
   
3. Backbench MPs would motivated to raise their performance.
   
4. Representation of women could increase while abolishing all-women shortlists.

The system I propose would involve merging three-seat clusters and having each of these large constituencies elect three MPs instead of one; and electing them by Single Transferrable Vote rather than by First Past The Post; just as was used in Labour's deputy leadership election.

The STV element ensures that people's votes really do count, making a fairer system and allowing smaller parties a better chance, particularly if an incumbent party has acted with arrogance.

The constituency link would be protected. Although the constituencies would be larger and each party would pick three candidates, the parties would not choose the order of those candidates.

In multi-member constituencies by STV, there would be very few safe seats and in most constituencies, a lazy or unpopular politician could find themselves easily ousted by an opposition MP or even by one of their own party. Voters would benefit from the competition and sometimes co-operation between three MPs.

AWS would be abolished while providing for greater representation of women. Labour could insist on target seats having two women candidates of three yet still allow a space for one man. There could also be an insistence that all Labour slates include at least one woman. If we were daring, we could pass a law ensuring that all parties' slates  contain at least one woman and one man.

My proposal would link the best of PR with the best of the current system, and be entirely focused on empowering voters. Making politicians more accountable will make government better and there will be no more MPs who can take their seats for granted.

But there is a message to opponents of PR within the Labour movement. It may happen whether you like it or not, and if it is left to the Labour and LibDem upper echelons to decide, what form will PR take? Regional party lists? Constituencies with party list top up seats? And when that happens, will you regret not influencing the debate at an earlier stage?