The Liberal Democrats today called on the Labour Party to institute a comprehensive review of every Commons selection held so far this Parliament in a bid to rid the party of the "stench of corruption from your current crop of candidates".

The call came as one of six recommendations from Liberal Democrat President Tim Farron. He was responding to the public consultation instigated on Thursday 19 September by Ray Collins as part of his interim report into Labour's links with the unions.

The six recommendations are that Labour should:

• Institute some real democracy into their policy-making process, following the lead of Liberal Democrat members at our Glasgow conference
• Put principle ahead of playing politics and support real reform of the political process
• Back Liberal Democrats in Government to address the cost of living and create more jobs
• Institute a policy of one-member-one-vote to banish the union block vote from placing favoured candidates into party leadership
• Stop taking the electorate for granted. Follow the example set by Liberal Democrats: campaign all year round, every year
• Hold a clear, comprehensive and transparent audit of every Labour selection so far

The full letter to Ray Collins is below.

Dear Ray,

I note your pleasure in your interim report into Labour's relationships with the unions that Ed Miliband has opened your policy making to "good people with good ideas" outside Labour.

As such I'm delighted to take this opportunity to respond to your consultation, in the spirit of cross-party co-operation (hopefully more successfully than with the recently attempted reform of party funding, which you pulled out of because of the threat to union affiliation). I trust you will find my suggestions, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both useful and constructive.

Firstly, I must take issue with your statement that "the Liberals emerged out of elites inside Parliament, origins that still affect their outlook". I think you fundamentally misunderstand what our party is about. While Conservatives' vested interests are big business and Labour's the trade unions; we, of course, are the party whose only vested interests are our members.

You will have noted that our recent party conference in Glasgow was stacked full of mature, reasoned debate on future policy from our members - with each decision granted a democratic mandate because of that very principle. You will certainly have noted the consensus in the media following conference - that the decisions our members made in Glasgow shows we are serious about governing, anchoring any government into the centre-ground of British politics.

My first recommendation for you, therefore is, try introducing some real democracy into your policy-making process. No more stage-managed conferences, where delegates are pre-picked and told what to say. Embrace debate, democracy and an open policy-making process - it may actually reward you with some actual policies. You might also find it aids party unity.

You contrasted the outlook of our parties, with the Liberals "emerging from Parliament" and Labour being formed "outside of Westminster". Not just wrong but also hypocritical. Given the chance of backing the Liberal Democrats and joining the Yes Campaign in the AV Referendum - a policy you had explicitly advocated in your 2010 manifesto - you ducked it, refusing to align your party or campaign for what you supposedly believed in. Instead of backing our much-needed and long-awaited reform of the House of Lords, you ducked it again, putting short-term politics ahead of long-term principle.

So my second recommendation is that the Labour party should grow a collective backbone. Your party is wracked with indecision and failing to stand up for what it supposedly believes in. Ed Miliband needs to show some genuine leadership rather than being blown with the wind as at present. Look at Nick Clegg. Not only has be shown remarkable leadership in securing a gamut of Liberal Democrat wins in government but he has often had the strength of character to say no to David Cameron. That's why schools are not able to be run by businesses for profit, companies are not able to fire staff at will with no legal protections and the Snoopers' Charter, giving security services access to all our personal internet use, is no more. Real examples of the Liberal Democrats keeping the coalition anchored in the centre ground.

I'm disappointed to see you set your ambitions with your review so low. You claim, on page three, that there are 3m people affiliated to Labour through the unions, yet Ed Miliband's "bold vision" is to grow your membership by as little as 300,000. Perhaps you are just being realistic by assuming that only one in 10 people currently paying Labour £3 each per year will continue to do so when given the choice. But isn't it a sad indictment of how out of touch and irrelevant you believe your party to be that you think just 10% of Labour's affiliated members will actually become actual members? No wonder you and your colleagues dragged your feet on reform of affiliation fees for so long, despite review after review of party funding arrangements recommending it.

Perhaps you're worried that nine out of ten union members will be more attracted by the Liberal Democrats, who have given 24m working people a £700 tax cut and taken the 2.5m lowest paid out of income tax altogether; extended free childcare and, in the last few days, have announced plans to give all infants free school meals. My third recommendation is that you back Liberal Democrat plans in government to address the cost of living and create more jobs while making our economy stronger and our society fairer.

I must say I am particularly disappointed by a couple of your admissions. You say that the trade unions currently have 33% of the vote for choosing your leader and deputy leader but that, following your reforms, it will only go down to 30%. This is simply not good enough. My fourth recommendation is that you follow the Liberal Democrats and introduce one-member-one-vote, taking away the power of trade union barons to place their favoured candidates into power. Any reform that does not include this simply makes a mockery of the whole process.

Secondly, and perhaps most worrying of all, is your admission that membership in seats where you have the sitting MP is often down to "a handful of people" (page 10). This is astounding and truly shows the contempt you have for the electorate in so-called safe seats. You will have perhaps noticed the recent polling by YouGov on whether people were satisfied by their MP (Total Politics, October). Among people living in a Labour seat the net score is -5, among people living in a Liberal Democrat seat the net score is +14. That's why recommendation five is stop taking the electorate for granted. Follow the example set by Liberal Democrats: campaign all year round, every year. Fight hard for local communities. Hold regular surgeries. Build up teams of activists. You might find that people hold Labour less in contempt if your representatives started taking their responsibilities seriously.

Finally, you report that Ed Miliband has called for "properly regulated and overseen" agreements so that unions cannot put pressure on candidate selections at constituency level. Is this an implicit admission that the problems go further than Falkirk? My final recommendation therefore is that you hold a clear, comprehensive and transparent audit of every Labour selection so far, publishing all links selected candidates have to unions and what pressure was put on those selections by said unions. It is only by coming clean now, and re-running selections where necessary, that you can hope to rid the stench of corruption from your current crop of candidates, and restore the trust in the process you and Ed Miliband seek.

If you would like any further advice please let me know.

Best regards,

Tim Farron